Skip to main content

Full text of "Maryland Historical Magazine Spring 1974"

See other formats


MARYLAND 

HISTORICAL MAGAZINE 




Viil h9 
Nm 1 

Sprifig 1974 



Roger B. Taney; A Historiographical In- 
quiry 

Marvin Laurence Winitsky 

Frederiek Douglass: Maryland Slave to 
Religious Liberal 
William L. V an Deburg 

The Effeets of the Civil War on Southern 

Protestantism 

Vt . Harrison Daniel 

Politics. Intrigue, and the Presidency: 
James McHenry to Bishop John Carroll, 
May 16, 1800 

John B. Boles 



Roger Brooke TaHtj 



YLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY 



BOARD OF EDITORS 



JEAN BAKER Gaucher College 

MAXWELL BLOOMFIELD Catholic University of America 
RHO©A M. DORSEY CAatWMtfw, Gcmchvr College 
JACK P. GREENE Johns Hopkins University 
AUBREY C. LAND University of Georgia 
BENJAMIN QUARLES Morgan State College 
MORRIS L. RADOFF Maryland State Archivist 
WALTER RUNDELL, JR. University of Maryland 
A. RUSSELL SLAGLE Baltimore 
RICHARD WALSH Georgetown University 



FORMER EDITORS 

WILLIAM HAND BROWNE 1906-1909 

LOUIS H. DIELMAN 1910-1937 

JAMES W. FOSTER 1938 1949, 1950-1951 

HARRY AMMON 1950 

FRED SHELLEY 1951 1955 

FRANCIS C. HABER 1955-58 

RICHARD WALSH 1958-1967 



RICHARD R. DUNCAN, 
Editor 

JOHN B. BOLES, 

Book Review Editor * 

RALPH D. NURNBERGER. 

Assistant Editor 
MARY K. MEYER, 
Genealogical Editor 

EUGENIA CALVERT HOLLAND and LOIS B. McCAULEY, 
Graphics Staff 



Director P. WILLIAM FILBY 



Published quarterly by the Maryland Historical Society, 201 
W. Monument Street, Baltimore, Md. Second-Class postage 
paid at Baltimore, Md. 

Composed and Printed at Waverly Press, Inc. Baltimore, 
Maryland 21202. 

© 1974, Maryland Historical Society 



Maryland 
Historical Magazine 

PUBLISHED BY 

THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY 




Volume LXIX 



BALTIMORE 
1974 



CONTENTS OF VOLUME LXIX 



Contributors opp. 1, opp. 123, opp. 243, opp. 341 

Roger B. Taney: Historiographical Inquiry. Alarvin Laurence Wm'ttsky 1 

Frederics: &mim9m'. Makyiaito Slave T© -ll«MI9i* I«hral. WUlkm L. 

Van Deburg 27 

The Effects Of The Civil War On Southern Protestantism. W. Harrison 

Dmml 44 

PoLirrcs, Imtiogui, Am> The VKBsmmtcY: James McHenry To Bishop Car- 
roll, May 16, 1800. John B. Boles 64 

Notes On Maryland Historical Society Manuscript Collections 86 

A Description Of The Vertical File. Richard f. Cox 86 

Accessions Of The MANusciR»T Dmsicm S»km Tmt P(j*L!CATKm Of MAN- 
USCRIPT COLLECTIONS OP THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY 

In August, 1968, X 90 

Genealogica Marylamma 93, 323, 418 

Captain John FuLroiffi's Company, February 13, 1776, To May 21, 1777. 

Edited by Mary K. Meyer 93 

Reviews Of Recent Books 98, 228, 327, 426 

Book Notes 116, 338, 443 

Notes And Queries 120, 447 

The St. Mary's Qty Commission 123 

"The Metropolis Of Maryland"; A Comment On Town Development 
Along The Tobacco Coast. Lois Green Carr 124 

St. John's: Archaeological Questions And Answers. Garry Wheeler Stone. 146 
Opportunity And Inequality: The Distribution Of Wealth On The 

Lower Western Shore Of Maryland, 1638-1705. Russell R. Menard, 

P. M. G. Harris, Lois Green Carr 169 

The "Virginia House" In Maryland. Gary Carson 185 

A Tenant Farmer's Tableware: Nineteenth-Century Ceramics From 

Tabb's Purchase. George L. Miller 197 

Death In The Chesapeake: Two Life Tables For Men In Early Colonial 

Maryland. Lorena S. Walsh and Russell R. Menard 211 

In Memorum: George L. Radcliffe between 241-243 

Harold Randall Manakee, 1908-1974. Harry Bard between 241-243 

Business Innovation And Social Change: The Career Of Alexander 

Brown After The War Of 1812. G^rry L. Browne 243 

A Glimpse Of Baltimore Society In 1827: Letters By Henry D. Gilpin. 

Ralph D. Gray and Gerald E. Hartdagen 256 

Thomas Stone And The Reorganization Of The Maryland Council Of 

Safety, 1776. Jean H. Vivian 271 

Mt. Vernon Place At The Turn Of The Century: A Vignette Of The 

Garrett Family. Katharine B. Dehler 279 



Sidelights 293, 398 

The Lost World Of Daniel Boorstin. Rodney M. Severs 293 

A Selected Bibliography Of Articles On Maryland History In Other 

Journals. Dorothy M. Brown and Richard R. Duncan 300 

Hons Mmtums: ^smmEm Sooety Ii^^kigmpt €MAmmom: Two 
Marylanders In The Emxly Navy: Ths Hambliton Family Papbrs, 
Ms. 2021, by Richard J. Cox 317 

Accessions Of The Manuscript Division Since The Publication Of Manu- 
script Collections Of The Maryland Historical Society In August 
1968, XI 321 

Death Records From Richard Markland's Copy Book. Mary K. Meyer 323 

George L. Radcuffe, 1877-1974. Samuel Hopkins between 340-341 

A Portrait Of Baltimore In 1800: Economic And Occupational Patterns 

In An Early American City. Richard M. Bernard 341 

Ellen Spencer Mussey And The Washington College Of Law. Catherine 

M. Rottier 361 

Benefit Of Clergy In Colonial Maryland. Peter G, Yackel. 383 

A Marylander In Africa: The Letters Of Henry Haniton. IF. Wayne 

Smith 398 

The Great Baltimore Deluge Of 1817. Rdph D. N umber ger 405 

Notes On Maryland Historical Society Manuscript Collections: The 
Historical Development Of The Manuscript's Division Of The 

Maryland Historical Society. Richard f. Cox. 409 

Somerset Parish Records. Robert Barnes 418 



ILLUSTRATIONS 

Page 

Roger Brooke Taney Covet, Spring 

Roger B. Taney. Library of Congress 3 

Home of Roger B. Taney, Bentz Street, FfeAstkk, Mm^md. Maryland Historical 

Society 5 

John Marshall. Library of Congress 7 

Roger B. Taney. Ubrary of Congress 10 

John Bach McMaster. Ubrary of Congress 13 

Roger B. Taney. Maryland Historical Society 15 

Albert Beveridge. Library of Congress 18 

Roger B. Taney. Library of Congress 21 

Walker Lewis. Maryland Historical Society 23 

Roger B. Taney. Maryland Historical Society 25 

Frederick Douglass. Ubrary of Congress 28 

Wendell Phillips. Library of Congress 31 

Jrfin Brown. Ubrary of Congress 33 

Henry Ward Beecher. Library of Congress 35 

Frederick Douglass. Ubrary of Congress 37 

Theodore Parker. Ubrary of Congress 39 

Robert G. Ingersoll. Library of Congress 41 

William Lloyd Garrison. Ubrary of Congress 42 

Rev. L. F. Drake preaching at Camp Dick RotHnson, Kentucky, 1864. Uhrary of 

Congress 47 

St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Richmond, 1865. Library of Congress 51 

Cathedral of St. Jrfin, Charleston. Ubrary of Congress 53 

Richmond, 1865. Library of Congress 56 

Ruins of the Circular Church, Charleston. Ubrary of Congress 59 

Headquarters, United States Christian Commission, Richmond, 1865. Ubrary of 

Congress 62 

James McHenry. By St. Memin. Maryland Historical Society 66 

Thomas Jefferson. Maryland Historical Society 67 

John Carroll. Maryland Historical Society 70 

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Maryland Historical Society 73 

Alexander Hamilton. Maryland Historical Society 75 

George Washington. Maryland Historical Society 77 

Aaron Burr. By Gilbert Stuart. From DictimMry of American Portraits 79 

Robert Goodloe Harper. By St. Memin. Maryland Historical Society 81 

John Jay. By Gilbert Stuart. From Dictionary of American Portraits 83 

Archbishop &muel Eccleston. Maryland Historic^ Society 87 

Charles Joseph Bonaparte. Maryland Historical Society 89 

Enlistment Notice. Library of Congress 94 

St. Mary's City: The Village Crossroads, l690's. Detail from a conjectural 

drawing Cover, Summer 

The St. Mary's Townlands, 1640-47. Map 1: The tract map is based on origitml 
surveys superimposed on a recent topographical map created from aerial sur- 
veys. Dates of structures reflect the earliest mention in the records 127 



The Village 1678. Map 2: 134 

Photograph 1 : The reconstructed State House of 1676 stands on what was Thomas 

Notley's lot on Aldermadbury Street 137 

Photograph 2: This gun called a safeer was fcucmd oa Ac wm MewOnwok ^nt 

in 1824 141 

Plate lA: The house during excavation, looking south 150 

Plate IB: The superimposed chimneys after removal of flie constraction and pre- 

construction levels (except for a small control strip on the right) 151 

Plate II: Excavator uncovering the line of nails of a ball joist 154 

St. John's circa 1640 156 

St. Mary's Townlands, 1667 159 

St. John's circa 1670. Preliminary Interpretation l6l 

Hate III: Architectural and furniture fragments: hinges, keys, and a brass escutch- 
eon plate. Items are photographed agatBSt a CMie-indi squ^ grid 162 

Plate IV: St. John's in the late seventeenth century 164 

Plate V: Archaeological aides, identifiable finds 165 

Plate VI: St. John's small objects that fell through cracks in the floor or were lost 

in the yard 167 

Figure I: Mean and Median Total Estate Value on the Lower Western Shore of 

Maryland, 1638-1705 172 

Figure II: Inventories and Taxables on the Lower Western Shore of Maryland, 

1658-1705 175 

Figure III: flOutR^dld Ia<raaflories md impacted Deaths of Heads of Households 

on the Lower Western Shore of Maryland, 1658-1705 177 

Figure IV: Age Adjusted Mean Total Estate Value on the Lower Western Shore of 

Maryland, 1658-1705 179 

Figure 1: Holly Hill, ground plan 187 

Figure 2: Holly Hill axial section (AA^) facing south. The drawing shows all 

visible fragments of the earliest house and its first enlargement 188 

Figure 3: Holly Hill, exploded view of Period I construction at SE corner. The 
roof clapboards and the eaves board are restored in the drawing to show the 
original function of the nailing blocks. Not seen are the sprockets that carried 
the splayed lower edge of the roof over the ends of the extended tie beams . . 189 
Figure 4: Sarum, perspective view of seventeenth-century timber frame from SE 

ocaner 190 

Figure 5: Sarum, axial section facing north. The oldest part of the house is cov- 
ered by the clapboarded roof, in which are still visible traces of two original 

dormers and the roof to a porch tower 193 

The excavated house. In the fctf^rbmid is §te eat diifflney of Roger ToUe's dwell- 
ing, beyond which is the cellar added by Moses Tabbs 198 

Graduate Student recovering ceramics from the ramp fill 199 

Plate II: Drawings by Gretchen Ncdiey 203 

Plate III 204 

Plate IV: 207 

Plate V 208 

Qiristmas Day 1860 Cover, Winter 

George L. Radcliflfe, 1877-1974 between 340-341 



Atheneaum. Maryland Historical Society opp. 341 

Plan of the Town of Baltimore. A. Folic. 1792. Maryland Historical Society 343 

Warner and Hanna's Plan of the City and Environs of Baltimore, 1801. Maryland 

Historical Society 346 

Warner and Hanna's Map with Federal Tax Districts (1798) and City Wards 

(1797). City Wards indicated by broken numerals. Tax Districts by solid 

figure 347 

First Court House, 1768-1809. From Clayton Coleman Hall's Baltimore: Its History 

and People 349 



HALL OF RECORDS LIBRARY 



MA RYLAND 

HISTORICAL MAGAZINE 



rharlcs C^rrnW nf rarrnlltnn MXI \?.T> 




of tVie^' 



DONORS TO THE SOCIETY— 1973 
GIFTS OF MONEY OR SECURITIES 



SW,O00 ma over 

Jacob and Annita France Foundation 

Robert G, and Anne M, Merrick Foundation, Inc. 

Middendorf Foundation 

$5,000 and over 

William Randolph Hearst Foundation 

Donation for production of sets of full-color 

filmstrip "Maritime Baltimore for Maryland 

State Chamber of Commerce" 

S3,000 and over 

Mrs. Allen W. Dulles 
Mr. John H. Funkey 

52,000 and over 

Mr. and Mrs. Leonard C. Crewe, Jr. 

Allen Dickey Foundation 

Mr. and Mrs. Gerson Gutman Bisenberg 

$1,000 and over 

Mrs. Harry Clark Boden, IV 

Commander and Mrs. M. V. Brewington 

Dr. Edward C. Carter 

Mr. and Mrs. P. William Filby 

Mr and Mrs. D. Luke Hopkins 

Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Hopkins 

Elizabeth S. Hunting Legacy 

Mr, and Mrs. Charles L, Marburg 

Mr. John P. Paca 

Mr, and Mrs. C. William Schneidereith, Sr. 
Trustees, The Stiles E. Tuttle Trust 

$500 and over 

Estate of Thomas F, Cadwalader 
Dr. and Mrs. Ferdinand E. Chatard 
Mr. and Mrs. Edwin B. Filbert 
Mr. and Mrs. Bryden B. Hyde 
Mr. and Mrs. H. H. Walker Lewis 
Mr. and Mrs. John L. McShane 



Maryland Genealogical Society 
Mrs. Anne B. Middendorf 
John M. Nelson, Jr. Foundation 
Miss Mary Ringgold Trippe 

$200 and over 

Mrs. Esther B. Anderton 

Mr. and Mrs. William K, Cogswell 

Mrs. Laurence Hall Fowler 

Miss Marguerite F. Klein 

Mr. and Mrs. Lester S. Levy 

Mr. and Mrs. George M. Radcliffe 

Mr, and Mrs, Jacques T. Schlenger 

Society of the Cincinnati of Maryland 

Society of Colonial Wars in the State of Maryland 

Mr, and Mrs. Frederick L. Wehr 

Corporate Donors 

Alban Tractor Company 
American Smelting & Refining Co. 
Arthur Andersen & Co. 
Baltimore Gas & Electric Company 
The Barton-Gillet Company 
The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Com- 
pany of Maryland 
Chesapeake Cadillac Co, 
Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland 
First Maryland Foundation, Inc, 
J. J. Haines & Co., Inc. 
Koppers Company, Inc. 
Martin Marietta Corporation 
Maryland Cup Corporation 
Maryland National Foundation 
Monumental Corporation 
PPG Industries Foundation, Inc. 
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. 
Talbot T. Speer Foundation. Inc. 
Suburban Trust Company 
Trustees Flynn & Emrich Foundation 
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 
Waverly Press, Inc. 



MARYLAND 

HISTORICAL MAGAZINE 
CONTENTS 



Marvin Laurence Winitsky Roger B. Taney: A Historiographtcal IHflHty 1 

WMiam L. Van /^iwf Frederick Douglass: Maryland Slave to Religious Liberal 27 

W. Harr^m Dmiel The Effects of the Civil War on Southern Prw^iwfc®! 44 

John B. Boles Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency: James McHenry 

to Bishop John Carroll, May 16, 1800 64 



Vol. 69 
No. 1 

Spring 1974 



Notes on Maryland Historical Society 

Richard J. Cox A Description of the Vertical File 86 

Accessions of the Manuscript Division since the Publica- 
tion of Manuscript Collections of the Maryland His- 
torical Society 90 

Genealogica Marylandia 

Mary K. Meyer, editor Captain John Fulford's Company: February 13, 1776 to 

May 21, 1777 93 



Reviews of Rec«rt Books 



Lovejoy, The Glorious Revolution in America, by Stephen Saunders Webb • 
Reps, Tidewater Towns: Ciiv Planning in Colonial Virginia and Maryland, 
by Edward C. Papenfuse • Main, Political Parties before the Constitution, 
by Robert E. Shalhope • RenzuUi, Maryland: The Federalist Years, by 
Joseph W. Cox • Sheehan, Seeds of Extinction. Jeffersonian Philanthropy 
and the American Indian, by Robert E. Bieder • James, Anne Royall's 
U.S.A., by Fred M. Rivers • Blassingame. The Slave Community: Planta- 
tion Life in the Antebellum South, by Thomas P. Govan • Perry, Radical 
Abolitionism: Anarchy and the Government of God in Aniislavery Thought, 
by Bertram Wyatt-Brown • Meier, ed.. Memoirs of a Swiss Officer in the 
American Civil War, by Thomas L. Connelly • Erickson, Invisible Immi- 
grants: The Adaptation of English and Scottish Immigrants in Nineteenth- 
Century America, by Rudolph J. Vecoli • Landsberg, John Dos Passos' 
Path to USA: A Poliical Biography, 1912-1936, by Gerald W. Johnson • 
Quimby, ed., Ceramics in America, by Richard J. Cox • Sellers and Slot- 
ten, comp., Archives and Manuscript Collections of Dickinson College: A 
Guide, by Nancy G. Boles • Forbush, /4 History of Baltimore Yearly Meet- 
ing of Friends, by Kenneth L. Carroll * Wmm't^^-^Bif ifiOm nfGlen 
Burnie, by Mark Norton Schatz. 

98 



Book Notes 

Notes and Queries 



116 
120 



Officers and Members of Committees of the 
MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY 



Elected at the Annual Meeting, February 11, 1974* 



President 
Samuel Hopkins (1977) 

Vice- Presiden is 

Leonard C. Crewe, Jr. (1976) 
Robert L. Weinberg (1977) 
Mrs. W. Wallace Symington, Jr. 
(1978) 



Chairman of the Council 
George L. Radcliffe 

Recording Secretary 
S. Vannort Chapman (1976) 

For Treasurer 
John G. Evans 



Trustees of the A thenaeum 
William K. Cogswell, Chairman (1977) 



Miss Martha Bokel 
Arthur M. Gompf 



Francis H. Jencks 
Abbott L. Penniman, Jr. 



George M. Radcliffe 



Committee on the Gallery 
William V. Elder, III, Chairman (1978) 



J. R. Hfrbhrt Boone 
Bryden Bordley Hyde 
Mrs. Harold Duane Jacobs 
H. Irvine Keyser, 2nd 
R. McGill Mackall 
Charles L. Marburg 



Dr. Robert H. McCai i ey, Jr. 

Mrs. Allan J. Mead 
J. Jefferson Miller, II 
Miss Elisabeth C. G. Packard 
Richard H. Randall, Jr. 
Richard C. Riggs 



A*N«f> t» J^emscMfLD 



* Dates shown after certain officers' and committee chairmen's names indicate ex- 
piration of term. 



Committee on the Library 



Curtis Carroll Davis, Chairman (1977) 
Robert W. Black John A. Pentz 

Ralph L. DeGroff Jacques T. ScHLEMift* 

Arthur J. Gutman C. William Schneidereith, Sr. 

Edgar G. Heyl A. Russell Slagle 

Lester S. Levy Dr. Huntington Williams 

Committee on Finance 

toBERT G. Merrick, Chairman 
Trlman T. SWiMSSs JKfm€kmnnan 

Benjamin H. Griswoid, III John E. Motz 

Roger Brooke Hopkins Thomas S. Nichols 

Comn^^ m Publications 

C. A. Porter Hopkins, Chairman (1978) 
j®H» fti i&ciws H. M. WAKKBit Lewis 

jAtHiS. M; teiSOY EoWAftO C. P*rENFUSB 

Dr. Ferdinand E. Chatard Benjamin Qi ari i s 

Jack Philip Greene Morris L. Radoif 

Chester W. Gregory Walter Rundell, Jr. 

Wilbur H. Hunter, Jr. Arthur W. Sherwood 

Fra!«cis H. Jencks Dr. Thomas B. Turner 

Mrs. Alexandra Lee Levin Charles L. Wagandt, 2nd 



Committee on Membership 

George M. Radclwe, Ck0mmm (1977) 

Thomas M. Anderson, Jr. John W. Noble, Jr. 

Howard Baetjer, U John P. Paca, Jr. 

Rignal W. Baldwin Dr. Thomas G. Pullen, Jr. 

Gary Black Orlando V. Ridout, IV 

L««s G. Hecht W. dmwmti Slack 

George D. Hubbard Mrs. W. Wallace Symington, Jr. 

W. BouLTON Kelly,. Jr. Joseph D. Tydings 



Committee on Education 
Mrs. Bryden Bordley Hyde, Chairman (1977) 
Dr. David W. Zimmerman, Vice Chairman 
Ludlow H. Baldwin Wilbur H. Hunter, Jr. 

Dr. Harry Bard Mrs. Francis Scott Key 

Mrs. Philip Briscoe Dr. Thomas G. Pullen, Jr. 

Mrs. Richard H. Cromwell, Jr. Dr. James A. Sensenbaugh 

Gerson G. Eisenberg Miss NETfil i, Taylor 

C. A. Porter HofseiWi Robert L. Weinberg 

Committee on the Maritime Collection 

John L. McShane, Chairman (1978) 

J. Dawson Reeder, Vice Chairman 
Lewis A. Beck, Jr. E. Ralph Hostetter 

Hugh Bhnet, Jr. Charles A. Masson 

Mrs. Helen Delich Bentley Wftum W. Mattwews, Jr. 

Randolph W. Chalfant Robert E. Michel 

S. Vannort Chapman Rolfi; Pottberg 

Dr. Ferdinand E. Chatard Charles E. Scarlett, Jr. 

J. Frederick Douty, HI J. H«i«*'^-S«gMw:P¥ 

^ftMrnmoND Gibson WiLttiMM 'C:- SS'IUart 

Charles McI. Harris L. Byrne Waterman 

William E. Hill Frederick L. Wehr 

John A. Worthington 

Committee on Addresses 
Lester S. Levy, Chairman (1975) 
Mrs. Louis Azrael John Foe Tyler 

Edgar G. Heyl G. Luther Washington 

Committee on Genealogy and Heraldry 

A. Russell Slagle, Chairman (1977) 
Robert W. Barnes Henry M. Kelly 

Mrs. Harry Clark Boden, IV J. Seeger Kerns 

Miss Anna M. Cartiipge Jon Harlan Livezey 

Mrs. Norris Harris Dr. Michael Tepper 

Bryden tf6mk.EY I#yde Efe. J^^ftN WAltoN 

George B. Wilson 



Women's Committee 



Mrs. Allan J. Mead, Chairman 
Mrs. Richard H. Cromwell, Jr., Vice Chairman 



Mrs. Joseph D. Beckley 
Mrs. Marcus M. Bernstein, Jr. 
Mis* Martha Bokel 
Mrs. Calhoun Bond 
Mrs. William Bolcher, HI 
Mrs. Kenneth A. Bourne 
Mrs. Walter B. Buck 
Mrs. Curtis Carroll Davis 
Mrs. Edward K. Dunn 
Mrs. Swhpson Earle 
MSS. GtRStJN G. Eisenberg 
Mrs. W. T. Dixon Gibbs 
Miss Priscilla D. Howard 



Mrs. Bryden B. Hyde 
Miss Julia Pechin Ingle 
Mrs. Wfisi**! K»uw«Ni*ovEN 
Mrs. Henry F. Le Brun 
Mrs. Nicholas B. Merryman of J 
Mrs. Clarence D. Miles 
Mrs. B. Frank Newcomer 
Miss Elisabeth C. G. Packard 
Mrs. Richard C. Riggs 
Mrs. John W. Sause, Jr. 
Mrs. J. Nlc«<»AS SMftlVEk, Jr. 
Mrs. Paul P. Swett, Jr. 
Mrs. W. Wallace SywiMeTON, Jr. 



Miss Mary Gordon Thom 



P. William Filey, Director 
Mrs. Romaine S. So.merville, Assistant Director 



The Earl of Avon, Honorary Member 



CONTRIBUTORS 



John B. Boles, Associate Professor of History at Towson State College, received his 
Ph.D. from the University of Virginia in 1969. In 1972 he published The Great Re- 
vival, 1787-1805: The Origins of the Southern Evangelical Mind and in 1973 edited 
America: The Middle Period. Essays in Honor of Bernard Mayo. He also edited for 
microfilm publication the Papers of William Wirt (1971) and the Papers of John 
Pendleton Kennedy (1972). He has published articles in the Southern Humanities 
Review, Georgia Historical Quarterly, Journal of Popular Culture, aaS^^Wkgmia 
Baptist Register. 

W. Harrison Daniel is Professor of History and Chairman of his Department at the 
University of Richmond. He has published numerous articles on religious history in 
such journals as the Journal of Southern History, Civil War History, the Virginia 
Baptist Register, North Carolina Historical Review, and the Virginia Magazine of 
History and Biography. His article, "Southern Baptists and Education, 1865 1900: 
A Case Study," appeared in the Fail 1969 issue of this Magazine. 
William L. Van Deburg is an Assistant Professor of Afro-American Studies at the 
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Professor Van Deburg holds a doctor's degree 
from Michigan State University. He has previously published in the Register of the 
Kentucky Historical Society and Georgia Historical Quarterly, while a forthcoming 
article, "Afro-American Studies: A Question of Preservation," will be published in 
the spring issue of the Negro History Bulletin. 

Marvin Laurence Winitsky holds a Doctor of Jurisprudence and a Ph.D. degree from 
the California State University at Los Angeles where he is currently an Acting As- 
sistant Professor in the American Studbs ONplWtent. 



MARYLAND 

HISTORICAL MAGAZINE 

A Quarterly ™ f 

^ring 1974 



Roger B. Taney: A 
Historiographical Inquiry 

WAftVIN LAURENCE WINITSKY 



In TME face of a barrage of Northern invective leveled against Roger Taney's 
Dred Scott decision,' Samuel Nott, a Congregationalist minister from Massachusetts, 
published an approving pamphlet. When he sent a copy to Taney, the Chief Justice 
responded with a long letter and the hope that Nott's "fair" review would "correct 
some of the misrepresentations which have so industriously been made ... by 
many . . . who must have known better." Taney concluded that he would not violate 
judicial propriety by entering into controversy with slanderers, and that the "opinion 
must be left to speak for itself"^ His naive hope proved vain, however. No judicial 
opinion "speaks for itself," and most historians as late as the first quarter of the 
twentieth century accepted the North's indictment of Taney ss the major, if not the 
sole interpretive key to the man's judicial career. 

The Unjust Judge, an anonymous sixty-six-page pamphlet published in 1865, a year 
after Taney's death, typified initial Northern nationalist appraisals. It compared 
Taney with George Jeffreys, the English "hanging judge" of Monmouth's Rebellion, 
and deprecated him as a cloying tool of Andrew Jackson, supposedly "incapable of 
exhibiting even a caricature of personal or political independence," a judge whose 
opinions were "too trite to be quoted and too dull to be read. As a man, a Christian, 
and a jurist ... he falls below the lowest standard of humanity, religion, and law, 

' £>w*/ Scott V. Sanford, 19 Howard 393 (1857). 

'T>W»y to Nott, Aug. 19, 1857, Proceedings, Messachmetts Historical Society, Xll (1873), pp. 
445-447. 



1 



2 Maryland Historical Magazine 



recognized among civilized men." The displeased author then went on to overkill: "As 
a jurist, or, more strictly speaking, as a Judge in which character he will be most 
remembered, he was, next to Pontius Pilate, perhaps the worst (ililsiWt^iiBeopied the 
seat of judgment among men."' 

Replying to this and similar tirades, Samuel Tyler, a Baltimore attorney and 
Taney's friend, brought out a favorable biography in 1872.* It contained as much as 
Taney had compiled of his autobiography, dozens of letters Taney had written to 
iniportant cbtttemporaries, and summaries of selected judicial opinions. But, since the 
book had only an apologetic purpose and the correspondence between Taney and 
Andrew Jackson had not become available and because Taney, destroying most of 
those he received, made no copies of his own letters, the work's historical Value fell 
accordingly. For example, Tyler admitted that his purpose was "to vindicate one who 
had been . . . hated. . . ."^ In pursuing this aim, he called the question in Charles River 
Bridge^ "just suited to the statesmanly judicial mind of the Chief Justice"'' and held 
that the opinion, "enforced with the most convincing reasoning, founded on sound 
legal doctrine and expressed in the most felicitous diction, was most auspicious for the 
country," since it gave the states the freedom to advance their internal 
improvements.' Tyler even raised a general apology to Dred Scott.^ Characterizing 
the opinion and supplement as "the most comprehensive and best reasoned . . . ever 
pronounced by any tribunal,"'" he, claiming slavery to be "the one great educational 
institution by which ... the lowest classes of people . . . have been raised up from 
barbarism to a degree of intelligence and self-control . . . ," went well beyond 
Taney's opinion in rationalizing one of the practical consequences of Dred Scott}^ 

Although later nineteenth century historians made some stabs at fairness, their 
faith in Northern honor and Southern iniquity both preceding and during the Civil 
War never faltered, thus rendering ihcm incapable of judging impartially actions 
seemingly sympathetic to the South. For example, in 1886, John G. Nicolay's and 
John Hay's biography of Lincoln lauded Taney as "a man of amiable character, of 
blameless life, of great learning, of stainless integrity. . . ." Yet because of one 
disastrous decision, contended the authors, a lifetime of faithful service had been 
blighted, and Americans viewed Taney's death as a blessing — the removal of a barrier 
to human progress.'^ 

Another series of irtdictments cwwe fmm tte pSff <Jf the late nineteenth century 



' Walker Lewis, Without Fear or Favor (Boston, 1965), p. 477. 

* SamttSl TSflfef, Memoir ttf Re^r Brooke Tanev, LtB. (fcttimore, 1872). 

' Ibid., X. 

' Charles River Bridge v. Warrtn BrMge, W liters 420 (1837). 
' Tyler, Memoir, p. 275. 
^Ibid., p. 277. 

' Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 Howard 393 (1857). 
'"Tyler, Memoir, p. 361. 
" Ibid., p. 470. 

"JohnG.Nicolay and John Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A //wwn'(10vols.: New York, 1886), IX, p. 385. 



Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 



3 




Roger B. Taney. Library of Congress. 



"Whig" historian, James Schouler, in a multivolume History of the United States. He 
devoted most of his discussion of Taney to a consideration of Dred Scott. Schouler 
claimed that the Court was dominated by slaveholders and implied that the decision 
against Scott's rights stemmed from a Southern conspiracy. He then repeated the 
prevailing view that any part of the opinion not dealing with jurisdiction was 
extrajudicial, and therefore obiter dictum, in other words, a needless provocation that 
helped bring on the Civil War. Though he paid the Chief Justice a compliment 
— "Taney had many admirable traits of character, being learned in the law, 
painstaking, upright, and full of dignity. . ."—Schouler added the curious and 
seemingly controlling qualification that he was "wanting in the flow of healthy blood, 



"James Schouler, Historv of the United Slates Under the Constitution (7 vols.: New York, 1891), V, 
pp. 385, 373. 



I 



4 Maryland Historical Magazine 



and henceforth to a large faction of Americans he seemed almost a vampire, hovering 
in the dim twilight."" 

I 

Two exceptions to the damnation-by-faint-praise approach emerged early in the 
twentieth century, both presenting a different dimension and evaluation of Taney's 
career. The first, Arthur May Mowry's Dorr War, analyzed the constitutional 
struggle in Rhode Island in the 1840' s, allowing a consideration of Taney apart from 
his removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States in 1833 or his 
response to the Dred Scott challenge in 1857, up to then the incidents exclusively 
emphasized by Whig historians.'^ In Luther v. Borden, the case arising out of the 
Dorr rebellion, Taney had refused jurisdiction, and thus the Court implicitly upheld 
the established government of Rhode Island and repudiated Dorr's revolutionary 
regime.'^ Although treating the case and opinion off-handedly, Mowry's reverence for 
law and order took precedence over the traditional emphasis, and he singled Tawey 
out for praise for his self-restraint in ruling that federal courts lack the power to 
determine the legality of state governments. 

Another positive reevaluation of Taney appeared in 1909, with Charles Grove 
Haines' Conflict Over Judicial Powers." Haines went further than Mowry by arguing 
that the key to Taney's entire judicial career lay in self-restraint. To substantiate this 
generalization, Haines cited Taney's views in cases dealing with a state boundary 
dispute'" and disposition of Indian lands/' as well as Luther v. Borden. On the basis 
of such "evidence" Haines concluded that Taney wisely ignored the questionable 
precedents of John Marshall and kept the judiciary out of politics, the province of the 
legislative and executive branches. Haines strove to strengthen the reader's impression 
that Judicial supremacy flourished under Taney, in spite of, rather than as a result of 
the Chief Justice's opinions. However, to sustain this view, Haines had to treat the 
nonjurisdictional parts of Dred Scott and Taney's espousal of supremacy in Ahleman 
V. Booth (1859), as curious exceptions to a consistent career, not as examples of the 
subtlety and receptivity of Taney's mind requiring further investigation.^" 



'*Schouler's florid language epitomizes Whig historiography on Taney: "Melancholy must have been 
the spectacle in this cavern of justice, through whose eastern windows glanced the sunbeams as in to some 
mausoleum. . . . Elaborate, adroitly put together and cruel, it doomed the African of this age . . . exploring 
musty and worm-eaten codes. . . .Not difficult was it to rake together a heap of rubbish testimony. . .and of 
all perversions of right, judicial perversion is borne the least patiently, because the fountain, polluted at its 

source, must be purified or stopped But the virus of the view promulgated by this highest tribunal of the 

land corroded the Southern heart, and the poles of our confederated system diverged more widely." Ibid., 
pp. 

" Arthur May Mowry, The Dorr War, (Provii»i«e, tmif. 
"Lulher v. Borden, 7 Howard 1 (1849). 

" OMite itoia^, 7*e Cm^m Over Judicial Powers in the United States (New York, 1909), p. 

m. 

"Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Peters 752 (1838). 
" United Slates v. Rogers, 4 Howard 572, (1846). 
'"Ahleman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859). 



Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 



5 




Home of Roger B. Taney, Benlz Street, Frederick, Maryland. Maryland Historical Society. 



With the groundwork laid by Mowry and Haines. John Spencer Bassett and 
Edward S. Corwin in 1911 appeared to signal the beginning of a general reappraisal of 
Taney. ^' Bassett's account of Taney's role in the Bank War, while superficial and 
though it did not portray the Chief Justice as the strength and substance behind the 
Jacksonian form, as some later historians saw it, at least refrained from applying the 
"pliant instrument of Andrew Jackson" tag. Bassett substantially deviated from 
traditional accounts in terming Taney's mind vigorous and considering him the ablest 
of the anti-Bank crusaders, a man burdened with the misfortune "to take an 
unpopular side in two important crises. . . ."^^ The same year, Corwin supplemented 
Bassett's reassessment of Dred Scott by exposing the self-serving misconceptions of 
Whig historians.^' After analyzing contemporary judicial theory and practice, Corwin 
found fault with the nonjurisdictional parts of the opinion, but nevertheless he 
concluded that they were not obiter dicta within any definition obtainable from a fair 
review of the practices of the Supreme Court under Marshall.^* 

However, these budding signs of a favorable consensus among historians regarding 



"John Spencer Bassett, Life of Andrew Jackson (New York, 1916). 
" Ibid, p. 647. 

" Edward S. Corwin, "The Dred Scott Decision in the Light of Contemporary Legal Doctrines," 
American Historical Review. XVII (Oct. 191 1), pp. 52-69. 

'"Ibid., p. 68. On this same point, two later accounts amplify Corwin's notion. See Horace A. Hagan, 
"The Dred Scott Decision," Georgetown Law Journal, XV (Jan., 1927), pp. 95-114; and Wallace 
Mendelson, "Dred Scott's Case Reconsidered," Minnesota Law Review, XXXVIII (Dec, 1953), pp. 



I 

I 



6 Maryland Historical Magazine 

Taney proved misleading. In 1913, John Bach McMaster, indicating that Corwin's 
thesis would gain acceptance only with difficulty, reiterated the traditional Whig 
assumptions about Dred Scott and judicial usurpation. And a few years later, a 
third-rate biography of a second-rate member of the Taney Court, criticizing Taney's 
strict adherence to the letter of the Constitution as a potential danger to the existence 
of the Union, carried the negative Whig theme of judicial self-restraint forward an 
additional stage. Thus Taney was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. 

II 

In the aftermath of World War 1, many American scholars began to question the 
historic necessity for the Civil War. Arguing against inevitability, they laid the 
groundwork for a multicausal interpretation by analyzing the many paths to war and 
scrutinizing anew the careers of antebellum leaders, including Roger Taney. 
Ironically, new viewpoints on the Chief Justice came, not from these historians, but 
from those who rejected "needless war" theories. Their disgust with war generally, 
and their desire to keep the nation united after an era of divisive Populist and 
Progressive agitation, caused them to emphasize major points of agreement between 
Taney and Marshall. One such scholar, Bernard Steiner, a Baltimorean benefiting 
from recently published Taney correspondence with Andrew Jackson, plus the 
perspective of time, if not distance, made the first attempt in 1922 at producing a 
balanced biography of Taney as a complex human being caught up iti a fafndly 
changing environment." 

Unfortunately, Steiner transferred some of his ambivalences and contradictions in 
outlook and approach to the subject, producing a series of confusing points and 
counterpoints within each major area of Taney's life. For example, though Steiner 
denied that Taney was a "pliant instrument of Andrew Jackson," he regarded his 
subject's arguments against the Bank of the United States to be specious and almost 
demagogical. Steiner rationalized this as proof of how far prejudice and antipathy 
could carry an honest man fighting a ruthless enemy and believing in the truth of his 
overemphatic statements concerning the money power and its influence in the United 
States. The author also grie'ved over Taney's Dred Scott discussion of the historical 
status of Negroes. He characterized his sentiments as false and inhumane, though 



16-28. Corwin, however, qualified the general implications of his appraisal with words much like those of 
Whig historian James Ford Rhodes in his History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 (7 
vols.: New York, 1920), II, when he noted that although Taney was acting within the scope of his office: 
"The Dred Scott decision . . . can and must be written down as a gross abuse of trust by the body that 
rendered it. . . . During neither the Civil War nor the period of ReconstructioH^tlieSupceiiie Court play 
anything like its dual role of supervision." Ibid., pp. 68-69. 

" John Bach McMaster, A History of the People of the United States from the Revolution to Civtl 
War (8 vols.: New York, 1913), VIll, p. 280. McMaster gave only passing notice to the n«ri<ma1rst 
Ableman v. Booth decision. See pp. 358-359. 

^' Philip Greely Clifford, Nathan Clifford, Democrat (I803-I88I) (New York, 1922), p. 290. 

" Bernard Christian Steiner, Life of Roger Brooke Taney, Chief Justice of the United Slates 
(Baltimore, 1922). Steiner grew up in the town where Taney practiced law for nearly twenty-five years and 
lived his entire adult life in the city of Tsfiey's reaMiilsMlM^i^out Ms judicial career. 



Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 



7 




John Marshall. Library of Congress. 



Uttered by a decent and truthful man, attempting to save the Union. 

The Chief Justice's pohtical mentality seemed basic to Steiner's contrapuntal 
approach. He portrayed Taney as a border-state federalist, loving the Union, but 
never advancing to the position of a nationalist; a man who never forgot the composite 
and federal character of the United States, but who felt it was necessary at strategic 
moments to enlarge national power beyond the limits claimed by Marshall. Steiner's 
complexity even carried into the more mundane aspects of Taney's makeup. Taney, 
he concluded, "was a clear-thinking, able, high-minded, hot-tempered, narrow, 
pertinacious, brave, prejudiced man," who invariably found support in a sublime 
certainty that he was right.^* However, the fact that Steiner never explained these 
provocative contradictions or allowed most of Taney's constitutional decisions to do 



Ibid., pp. 541-542. 



8 Maryland Historical Magazine 



more than speak for themselves, turned the biography into a series of confusing 
episodes, rather than a medium for a weii-defined, coherent thesis. 

Another reinterpretation appeared two years later in a seminal work on the 
Supreme Court. Charles Warren, no admirer of Taney or Jacksonianism, took issue 
with some of Haines' self-restraint thesis. He admitted that although Taney ushered in 
BO Supreme Court revolution and although the interpretation of some constitutional 
doctrines highly favorable to states' rights took place, the laments of the late 
nineteenth century historians had been largely unfounded. For Taney not only refused 
to reverse the broad lines of construction on which the Marshall Court h*d been 
proceeding, he went even further than Marshall in the direction of nationalism in 
admiralty and corporation cases. ^° This important comparison represented the first 
fKwIwographical attempt to view Taney, no less than Marshall, as a man expounding a 
clear-cut, consistent jurisprudence. Warren felt that "Marshall's interests were largely 
in the constitutional aspects of the cases before him," whereas "Taney's were largely 
economic and social," and concluded that "it was this change of emphasis from 
vested, individual property rights to the personal rights and welfare of the general 
community which characterized Chief Justice Taney's Court." The change stemmed 
from Taney's recognition of the basic transformation of American society bro^^t 
about by the adoption of universal suffrage, the transportation and entrepreneurial 
revolutions, and continental expansion. In addition to his favorable comparison of 
Taney with Marshall, Warren's emphasis on Civil War "inevitability" enabled him to 
minimize the Dred Scott decision as a potent factor in causing the war and merely to 
state with Corwin that the decision severely damaged the prestige of the Court for 
many years. He differed from Corwin, however, in absolving the Court of blame for 
the fall in prestige and focusing instead on the "false and malignant criticisms and 
portrayals of the Court which were spread widely through the North by influential 
ftiewsi*peTs. . . .'"' 

For the next ten years (1924 1934) few writings on Taney appeared." However, 
one promising development did take place in the views of Albert Beveridge. In the 
nine years between the publication of John Marshall and AbnAam Llncatn, 
Beveridge, his Progressive career long behind him, older and much more conservative, 
succumbed to the heightened racism of the postwar era and produced a decidedly 
mort^imm'dtte sp^miA of Tamy.'^ The author stated that white remmkmg, he 

" Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History (3 vols.: Boston, 1924). 
"Ibid., II, p. 307. 
"lUd., Ill, p. 39. 

In 1923 a vehemently anti-Negro article appeared praising Taney for his "historical insights" in the 
Dred Scott case. See F. Dumont Smith, "Roger B. Taney," Texas Law Review, I (April, 1923), pp. 
261-280. A year later, William E. Mikell wrote an article little more than a laudatory sketch with a brief 
quotation from Charles Warren, emphasizing Taney's police power orientation, and especially what Mikell 
called his "sympathetic insight into the social forces ..." William E. Mikell, "Chief Justice Roger 
Brooke Taney," (Vest Virginia Law Quarterly, XXX (Jan., 1924), p. 100. He ended praising Taney for 
attacking Lincoln's suspension of the privil«gii «C lite ««k of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Ibid., 
p. 103. 

" A*6rt Bemtiim, Mtmitall (4 vols.: New York, I9I6- 1919), IV, and Abraham Lincoln 

(2 vols.: »«ew York, »28), it. III, Md FV. 



Roger B. Taftcy: AiUMlertdfrapIti^ Inctutry 9 



quickly discarded the traditional charge of conspiracy in the Dred Scott case to the 
"junk-heap of political canards"'* and claimed that most people, even politicians, 
reacted calmly to the Court's decision. Furthermore, he found that since, in fact, 
"Taney had no slaves, Campbell had no slaves, and that Daniel, Wayne, and Catron 
may have had a house servant or two," he had to weigh the Whig charge of slave 
power influence on the Court somewhat differently.'^ Beveridge asserted in 1927: 
"The more I study the matter, the more ... he seems to me to have been an able, 
upright, patriotic old man."'* 

Professor F. H. Hodder repeated and expanded this view, two years later.'' He 
deprecated the Dred Scott decision, but blamed Justices Grier and Catron for leaking 
advance notice of the majority opinion to President James Buchanan. Hodder thus 
cleared Taney of half of the traditional conspiracy charge. He then dropped the other 
half by assigning final blame to Justices Curtis and McLean, the Northern nationalist 
and antislavery heroes of Whig historiography, for forcing wide-ranging opinions. 
Hodder thus simultaneously repudiated the charge of slave power influence in Taney's 
opinion and substantiated Corwin's 1911 "obiter dictum" statement." On only one 
issue did Hodder disagree with Beveridge — the latter's adherence to Civil War 
"inevitability." There, the Northerner (Beveridge) and the Southerner (Hodder) 
parted company, since Hodder felt that the Dred Scott decision destroyed Douglas, 
the only man who might have averted catastrophe." 

Although Beveridge died before his study reached Lincoln's presidential years," 
two works appeared in 1930 describing one phase of the wartime relationship between 
Taney and Lincoln. In the first, attorney Monroe Johnson reiterated the stand taken 
by Steiner in 1922, that while somewhat narrow in outlook, Taney responded 
correctly to the suspension of habeas corpus in 1861.*' But the other work, Charles 
Fairman's book on martial law, deemed Lincoln's action fully within the scope of his 
powers as commander-in-chief, given the extreme circumstances.*^ Fairman even 
quoted Taney on martial law in Luther v. Borden (1849) to demonstrate the 



^'Claude G. Bowers, Beveridge and the Progressive Era (Boston, 1932), p. 584. 
Ibid., p, 586. Beveridge's discoveries regarding the charge of conspiracy and slave power influence 
directly refuted Schouler. However, regarding the excitement over the decision, Beveridge seemed no more 
than a reiteration from a different direction of the claims already made by Corwin and Warren. 
Beveridge to Professor F. H. Hodder, Feb. 22, 1927, in Bowers, Beveridge, p. 585. 
" F, H. Hodder, "Some Phases of the Dred Scott Case," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XVI 
(June, 1929), pp. 3 22. See also E. 1. McCormac, "Justice Campbell and the Dred Scott Decision," 
Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XIX (March, 1933), pp. 565-571. 
"Hodder, "Some Phases," p. 17. 
Hodder also repudiated Taney's use of substantive due process, arguing that Congress had no power 
to regulate slavery in the terrilorie' , an issue still moot in writings on Taney. He also felt that without the 
influence of Curtis the Dred Scott case would never have been heard of and the whole course of American 
history would have been changed. 
"The last volume ends with 1858. 
Monroe Jotmson, "Taney and Wilson," American Bar Association Journal (Aug., 1930), pp. 
499-502. 

"Charles Fairman, The Law of Martial Rule (Chicago, 1930). 



10 Maryland Historical Magazine 




Roger B. Taney. Library of Congress. 



inconsistencies in his opinion in ex parte Merryman (1861). Fairman declined to 
derive any implications from these inconsistencies, however.*^ 

As if to summarize the recent scholarship. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, in a 



" Ibid., p. 1 67. See also, James Allen Smith, The Growth and Decadence of Constitutional Government 
(New York, 1930). 



R^pr 8. Taney: A HistoriographicaJ ln«|M«ry 



11 



1931 article, lauded Taney's legal scholarship, emphasized his similarity to Marshall 
in his defense of national power, and placed the blame for the effect of Dred Scott on 
the "unbridled criticism induced by the temper of the times."*" He mentioned two 
additional points which would attract much attention from scholars in later years. 
First, Taney's respect for property rights — always strong, despite the laments of Whig 
historians reviewing Charles River Bridge. In Bronson v. Kinzie (1843), contended 
Hughes, Taney actually expanded the contract clause by securing the rights of 
creditors over debtors.*' Second, Taney favored legitimate corporate rights, as 
witnessed by his decision to allow a corporation licensed in one state to do business in 
another on the basis of interstate comity (unless barred by the host state). *^ 

By the early 1930's then, certain clear lines of development could be seen in Taney 
research. First, the Chief Justice had been transformed from a fervent states-rights 
Democrat to a quasi-nationalist; second, Taney had been virtually cleared of Whig 
charges of slave power influence and conspiracy in Dred Scott; and, finally, Taney 
emerged as a conservative on property issues, his conservatism tempered somewhat by 
consciousness of public welfare considerations. Except for Steiner's brief and 
somewhat contradictory musings however, no serious effort had yet been-irt#4e to 
reveal the inner man, or to explain the apparent contradictions in his life. 

Ill 

By the 1930's three forces had converged to produce a sharp impact on 
Constitutional historiography. The New Deal gave dimension and urgency to the 
question of federal power. Among legal historians, those few sympathetic to 
Roosevelt's program tended to emphasize Taney's judicial "self-restraint" and his 
"police power" opinions, thus labeling the Chief Justice a dangerous foe of federal 
activity. The anti-New Deal majority, however, used the same texts to declare Taney a 
bulwark of the states' struggle against federal encroachment. A second force, the 
substantial influence of the views of historians Ulrich B. Phillips and Avery Craven, 
also exerted pressure. Their sympathetic and scholarly apologias for the plight of the 
slaveholder threw a more favorable light on Taney's relationship with the slave 
system. Finally, the general acceptance by historians of the "needless war" 
interpretations of Civil War orgins extended to writers on Taney and the Supreme 
Court and led to reinterpretations of Taney's role in Dred Scott. 

The impact of the first force could be seen as early as 1934, when Edward S. Corwin 
explored the antebellum Supreme Court's views on federal-state relations. Corwin 
argued that the "central conception of the Court under Taney affecting constitutional 
interpretations was that of federal equilibrium. . . In other words, the basis of 

. "Charles Evans Hughes, "Roger Brooke Taney," American Bar Association Journal, XV U (Dec, 
f931), pp. 785 790. 

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Peters 420 (1837); Bronson v. Kinzie, I Howard 311 
0843). 

" See Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company v. Debolt, 16 Howard 392 (1854). Whether this decision 
was truly pro-corporation or not, would become the subject of later inquiries. 
" Edward S. Corwin, Twilight of the Supreme Court (New Haven, 1934). 



12 Maryland Historical Magazine 



Taney's judicial career had been a jurisprudential common denominator: "that the 
then existing distribution of powers between the state and the national government 
should be regarded as something essentially fixed and unchangeable."''* By this 
statement and its corollaries, Corwin lifted Taney above the mere chronological 
narratives of Steiner and Tyler, the limitations of the police power per approach of 
Warren, and Whig writers restricted interpretations of the Bank War and Dred 
Scott.*^ He then attempted to soften critical judgment on Taney's seeming strict 
constructionism in Dred Scott by fitting it into the Chief Justice's conceptual 
framework of faith in a government of laws, not men/" Corwin concluded by 
reviewing what he considered the chief theories propounded by the Taney Court — the 
concept of dual federalism, the doctrine of due process of law, and the conception of 
liberty as freedom of contract — holding that the "net result was to put the national 
law-making power into a strait jacket so far as the regulation of business was 
concerned. By ending his analysis with a negative evaluation, Corwin hoped to 
demonstrate that despite judicial professions of a government of laws, Taney was able 
to use that facade to implement a personal philosophy, and thus provided clear and 
disturbing evidence of the New Deal era Supreme Court's extralegal freedom either 
to sustain or overturn the legislative will. 

The influence of the forces mentioned above could be seen even more clearly in two 
later works. In 1935, the standard biography appeared." Carl Brent Swisher, a Johns 
Hopkins political scientist and a critic of the paternalistic aspects of the New Deal 
(though an admirer of its progressive aspects), distinguished himself from most of his 
predecessors by delving deeply into primary sources and assembling much informa- 
tion about Taney not previously available. This resulted in a greater attention to the 
details of Taney's private life and a far deeper analysis of his leading constitutional 
decisions. Swisher adopted Steiner's laudatory tone, but unlike Steiner he unfortu- 
nately gave only lip-service to an environmental analysis, and thus exhibited far less 
balance in discussing the contradictory effects of that environment on Taney. Swisher 
argued that despite Taney's federalist upbringing, he entered Jackson's cabinet a 
devout democrat. Taney had always distrusted concentrations of power and property 
in the hands of a few individuals, and that provided the key to Taney's role in the Bank 
War. Regarding his judicial career, Swisher claimed that Taney had never comfhMfed 
himself to the broad nationalism of Marshall and was therefore a staunch believer in 
local government, whenever it could effectively promote the public welfare, because it 



"See ibid., pp. 11-12. 

" Yet Corwin accepted the police power concept as it relates to Taney and placed it and Taney within a 
Jacksonian framework. Ibid., p. 67. 

*° However, Corwin felt this belief by Taney did not prevent lapses of historical sense with his use of 
substantive due process as a limitation on Congress' legislative power on slavery in the territories, his 
repudiation of Marshall's test for admiralty jurisdiction in The Genessee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 Howard 443 
(1851), or the contradiction between his consideration of the president's power during the Bank War and 
that power during the Civil War. 

"Corwin, Twilight of the Supreme Court, p. 181. 

" Carl Brent Swisher, Roger B. Taney (New York, 1935). 



Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 13 




John Bach McMaster. Library of Congress. 

countered the danger of the national government's becoming the tool of moneyed 
interests. 

Swisher, joining issue with Steiner s quasi-nationalist thesis, felt that the Chief 
Justice had implemented his Jacksonian "class-struggle" philosophy in two ways: by 
exercising judicial self-restraint regarding regulatory power and by using the Court's 
authority in setting judicial guidelines for the exercise of corporate power. As a result, 
Swisher gave short shrift to points of continuity with Marshall and to opinions reflect- 
ing a conception of judicial supremacy. Concerning Taney and slavery, Swisher 
provocatively wrote that although Taney deplored slavery, he recognized the system 
as inextricably bound up with Southern civilization, and that abolition would mean 
Northern domination of all the United States. Denying that Taney had participated in 
any Dred Scott conspiracy, Swisher nevertheless admitted that the Chief Justice 
believed in secession as the South's only guarantee of survival (thus inadvertently 
verifying the Whig historians' charge of disloyalty). Swisher's pro-Southern and 
anti-federal sympathies led him to justify the notion that; "In view of the arrogance of 
northern beliefs and the rapaciousness of northern interests it seems probable that 
Taney was right in his conclusion that the South was doomed if it remained in the 
Union."" 

Supplementary expansion of Swisher and Corwin's views came within a year. 
Charles Smith*'' presented thorough discussions of Taney's political theory and his 
contribution to constitutional law, averring that Taney combined extensive knowledge 

" Ibid., p. 588. 

" Charle.s W. Smith, Roger B. Taney: Jacksonian Jurist (Chapel Hill, 1936). Also see his article "Roger 
B. Taney and Mr. Biddle's Bank," Md. Hist. Mag., XXXI (March, 1936), pp. 16. 



14 Maryland Historical IVIagazirre 



of the law with a democratic philosophy and human sympathy/'* Smith concluded 
that Taney's chief contribution to constitutional law lay in liberalizing the use of the 
police power, and resulted from his belief in the paramount nature of the general 
welfare and sovereignty of the state. As with Swisher, Smith interpreted most, if not 
all the evidence with a decidedly pro-Taney bias, even to the point of upholding the 
validity of Taney's Dred Scott opinion. Obsessed with fitting Taney's opinions into a 
Jacksonian framework, Smith glossed over unruly facts, guided implications to the 
"proper" conclusions, and rationalized so many contradictions, that his portrait of 
Taney was no more believable than those produced by Whig historians. Additionally, 
in making Taney the champion of both democracy and states' rights. Smith had to 
side with Haines and discount writers and opinions which stressed Taney's judicial 
supremacy ideas. 

The extensive use of primary sources, and the comprehensive nature of their 
analyses, made the Swisher and Smith books the standard works on Taney, despite 
their obvious biases and overgeneralizations.^* For example, the Georgetown Law 
Journal soon published three articles on Taney. Two of the authors, William Ransom 
and Edwin Borchard, relied almost exclusively on Swisher, with results generally 
assuming variations on a Jacksonian theme," The third, Louis Boudin, even carried 
Taney a step beyond Swisher by labeling him a pragmatist who invariably favored 
economic progress over tradition and averring with Marxist emphasis, that the major 
contest during Taney's regime did not occur between states' rights and national rights, 
but between two forms of property interests.*' He then likened Taney to Marshall in 

''Ibid., p. 211. 

" Almost all works about the Taney court published since 1936 uncritically refer to Swisher's book as 
the standard biography and to Smith's book as the key to Taney's jurisprudence. For example, an article by 
Walter P. Armstrong relied completely on Smith to demonstrate that Taney accepted Jackson's political 
philosophy without mental reservations. See "The Rehabilitation of Roger B. Taney," Tenrms^e^ Lmw 
Review, XIV (June, 1936), pp. 205-218. 

" William L. Ransom, "Roger Brooke Taney. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States 
(1836 1864)," Georgetown Law Journal. XXIV (May, 1936). pp. 809-847. Edwin Borchard, "Taney's 
Influence on Constitutional Law," ibid., 864 863, and Louis B. Boudin, "John Marshall and Roger B. 
Taney," ibid., pp. 864 909. However, Ransom refused to carry the theme to every aspect of Taney's judicial 
career, and therefore limited it to questions involving the rights of corporations. And Borchard, while 
accepting the conclusions of Swisher and Smith, refused to admit that Taney's opinions could be classified 
or that Taney could be considered a member of any particular school of political thought. Boudin strongly 
put this same point, stating that the approach used by Smith was not well-calculated to provide an 
understanding of Taney's career. While agreeing with Swisher, he denied that any of our Chief Justices or 
statesmen were legal philosophers and dealt with legal or political questions in the abstract. See Ibid., pp. 
8*4, 854, 888. 

" "The real truth," began Boudin pompously, "is that if there was any distinction between Marshall and 
Taney in the kind of nationalism which each adhered to, Taney, being the product of the Jacksonian 
movement, favored the kind of nationalism which the economic circumstances producing that movement 
required — generally speaking, the development of internal improvements, which meant roads and means of 
transportation, in which the country then stood in most need." He claimed that Taney held no less a regard 
for the institution than Marshall, but differed markedly from his predecessor by holding an evolutionary 
concept of private property, not the static concept of Marshall. Once Boudin accepted the evolutionary 
property theory, he had to confront the Dred Scolt decision and tailor it to his particular scheme. He did 
this by using Swisher's argument that to Taney, slavery stood not merely as a form of property, but as an 
institution basic to Southern civilization, and the theory thst in the Sotith, there existed no contest between 
old and new forms of property as in the North. 



Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 15 




Roger B. Taney. Maryland Historical Socieiy. 



his desire to promote governmental activity, differing only on whether the state or the 
federal government should accomplish that end. In addition, the account again 
severely and unfortunately underrated Steiner's environmentalism.^" 

Ibid., p. 903. For an elaboration, see a prior work by Boudin, Government by J udiciarv (2 vols.: Neiv 
York, 1932). 



t€ Maryland Historical Magazine 



In 1937, Felix Frankfurter published a rejoinder to Boudin by contending that 
Taney and Marshall differed chiefly over concepts of governmental power, not forms 
of property. "Taney's chief difference with Marshall," Frankfurter wrote in his study 
of the commerce clause, "was in his challenge of the latter's central doctrine, that the 
'dormant' commerce clause operated to impose restrictions upon state aii#>oi4ty 
which it was the duty of the Court to define and enforce."*" Frankfurter also argued 
that Taney's governing outlook in commerce cases reconciled confused aims and 
accommodated conflicting pressures within the framework of a legal formuia, and 
that in most legal areas, Taney acted neither fanatically nor doctrinairely. Though 
echoing previous scholars who unquestioningly lauded Taney's judicial self-restraint. 
Frankfurter took issue with Whig historians who uncritically accepted T*fiey's 
Jacksonianism as radically agrarian, and then just as uncritically associated him with 
the Progressives of Theodore Roosevelt or Robert LaFoUette. Frankfurter ended by 
stating that Taney had an acute mind, an intimate knowledge of affairs based on wide 
experience, and "the opportunity for influencing the trend of events in the direction of 
his convictions,"*' an implicit disagreement with Steiner's border-state environmental 
a-nafysk. 

A year later, the dogma, cited either as opprobrium by Whig historians or praise by 
New Deal revisionists, that Taney and his Court sought to protect the public interest 
at the expense of the rights of private property, came under attack.'* Benjamin F. 
Wright declared that Taney had preserved the Marshall tradition and that the 
contract clause was more secure by 1864 than it had been in 1835. To strengthen that 
argument, Wright had to reinterpret the very gospel of public interest jurisprudence, 
the Charles River BricJf;e opinion. Rather than dismiss it as an exception, as other 
scholars had done with Dred Scott, Wright, insisting that Taney simply refused to go 
beyond the contract's specific terms, focused narrowly on the text. Thus Charles River 
Bridge hardly signaled a break with Marshall, for it represented but a slight change in 
emphasis. Moreover, Wright added that "there were relatively few cases in the Taney 
.period in which the principle of the Charles River Bridge case was applied."*' 



"° Felix Frankfurter, The Commerce Clause Under Marshall, Taney, and Waite (Chapel Hill, 1937), pp. 
50-51. "Taney's agrarianism was at bottom an ethical conception of the social responsibilities of private 
property." Ibid., p. 71. Judicial self-restraint would be the single subject of an article by Dean Acheson who 
felt it was one of Taney's greatest contributions to constitutional law, even though, in Dred Scott he yielded 
"to the temptation, always disastrous, to save the country." Dean G. Acheson, "Roger Brooke Taney: 
Notes on Judicial Self-Restrainl," Illinois Law Review, XXXI (Feb., 1937), pp. 705-717. At the time 
Acheson wrote, the Supreme Court had been under great attack for invalidating much New Deal 
legislation. 

p. 69. The same year, a previously unpublished Taney letter appeared which revealed that "the 
Chief Justice did not know the laws (and especially those pertaining to such a widely discussed subject as 
Negroes) of the town where he had lived for 20 years." "An unpublished Letter by Roger B. Taney," Md. 
Hist. Mag., XXXll (1937). pp. 225-227. 

°^ Benjamin Fletcher Wright, Jr., The Contract Clause of the Constitution (Cambridge, 1938). 

" Ibid., p. 65. Although Wright's monograph dealt only with the contract clause, many decisions on that 
provision contained statements implying refutations of prior scholarly claims of judicial self-restraint and 
humility. For example, Wright stated that in Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. v. Debott, 16 Howard 416 
(1853), it had been contended on behalf of the state treasurer that the construction given to acts of 



Rog«r B. Tan«p ^HMtMi^aphtcal Inciuiry 



17 



For most of the New Deal era, as in previous periods, scholars viewed Taney 
through an ideological filter, and the Chief Justice emerged as a conscious and 
consistent proponent of either populism or nationalism. In 1938, however, Kenneth 
Umbreit, who had published a critical review of Swisher's biography two years before, 
wrote a provocative and revisionist essay on Taney. Umbreit argued that "unworldli- 
ness" explained the Chief Justice's views on slavery, states' rights, and economics, 
and dictated his choice of reading material, friends, and travel. The author cited 
Taney's narrow reading, his insularity (he hardly ever traveled beyond Washington 
and Maryland), his pathological shyness, his limited and painfully naive knowledge of 
economics (Taney relied almost exclusively on Thomas EUicott of the Union Bank of 
Maryland for financial advice during the Bank War), and his mastery of appeafe and 
common law procedures, which eliminated most personal contact from a normally 
worldly profession. Finally, according to Umbreit, Taney measured all relevant issues 
by the standards of a "border state mentality," intolerant of most aspects of Northern 
civilization, and barely understanding (even ignorantly sentimentalizing) the South. 
Yet, in Umbreit's zeal to convince the reader of Taney's unworldliness, his argument 
lost mutjh of its force due to an inability to concede even the slightest maturation, 
much less sophistication to a man who held the offices of Chief Justice, Secretary of 
the Treasury, and Attorney General of the United States. Eighteen years had to elapse 
feefore a scholar would attempt to work Umbreit's findings into a tenable thesfs.*" 

A brief resurgence of post- World War I scholarly views occurred in a 1939 work on 
Taney and Marshall by Ben Palmer" and in a 1941 work on the Constitution by Beryl 
Levy. To establish Taney's sophistication, and thus refute Umbreit, Palmer Bsed one 
of the Chief Justice's anticorporation opinions to indicate his awareness of facts not 
specified in the judicial record and his appreciation of the realities of business 
inlteence on law-making.*' Palmer also saw Taney's opinions as no less effective 



Assembly by the state courts ought to be regarded as conclusive. But, Taney held this rule of construction 
must be confined to ordinary acts of legislation and did not extend to the contracts of the state, although 
they should be made in the form of a law. "For it would be impossible for this court to exercise any 
appellate power in a case of this kind, unless it was at liberty to interpret for itself the instrtutteflt rdied on 
as the contract between the parties." 

" Kenneth Vm\ciie^,-t^Mmm-'^^Mim^im,iwWe»m0^'A9tr Personalities (New York, I93S), p. 
216. 

" In addition, Swisher, in a 1939 article (see footnote 68) admitted that Taney, in Dred Scott, was too 
intimately involved in the sectional struggle to take an Olympian view and work out a solution from trends 
and principles. And in Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln (2 vols.; New York, 1950), 11, there appear 
many comments on Taney's stubbornness: ". . . he was strongly molded by his early Calvert County 
environment . . . and was deeply sympathetic with Southern ways and manners. . . ." Ibid., II, p. 102. 

Benjamin Whipple Palmer, Marshall and Tanev, Statesmen of the Law (New York, 1939). Also, 
Swisher, in an article published in the same year, emphasized that most of Taney's democratic ideas were 
not inherited, or indoctrinated by early training, but arose out of his own thought and experience during his 
mature years. See Carl Brent Swisher, "Roger B. Taney and the Tenets of Democracy," Md. Hist. Mag., 
XXXIV (Sept., 1939), pp. 207 222. 

" In Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company v. Debott Taney stated that ". . . it is a matter of public 
history, which this Court cannot refuse to notice, that almost every bill for the incorporation of banking 
companies, insurance and trust companies, railroad companies or other corporations, is drawn originally by 
the parties who are personally interested in obtaining the charter; and that they are often passed by the 



18 Maryland Historical Magazine 




Albert Beveridge. Library of Congress. 

nationalizing influences than Marshall's, an effort which forced him to sidestep 
Taney's police power opinions and merely to state that in that area a shift of interest 
and emphasis existed to some degree. He used many of the same cases relied upon by 
Boudin for proof of the preeminence of property conflicts over those of jurisdiction, 
but claimed opposite results. Palmer also criticized previous scholars who had praised 
Taney's judicial restraint, stating that such praise would lead to the absurd deduction 
that the way to preserve a power lay in its disuse. In addition, both Palmer and Boudin 
refused to make Dred Scott an exception to Taney's jurisprudence. However, while 
Boudin derived the pure property right emphasis to cast Taney into the role of 



Legislature in the last days of its session when, from the nature of our political institutions, the business is 
unavoidably transacted in a hurried manner, and it is impossible that every member can deliberately 
examine every provision, in every bill upon which he is called on to act." Ohio Life Insurance v. Debolt, 16 
Howard 416, p. 435. 



Roger 'B. Taney: A Historiographical Inqwiry 1 9 



Southern civilization's champion, Palmer, associating him with Marshall's property- 
conscious conservatism, used the same case to make him the defender of all forms of 
private property. Therefore, Palmer had to reconcile Taney's economic conservatism 
with his public-welfare oriented Charles River Bridge, and "police power" decisions, 
by making the Chief Justice adhere to the maxim that . . the truest conservatism 
comes in a sane and timely recognition of the need for social and political change."^* 
These approximated Levy's points too, but, as distinguished from Palmer, he cited 
judicial continence as the most notable feature of his opinions, allowing the legisla- 
tures of either the state or the national government to function as freely as possible.^" 
Thus, what Palmer considered an active nineteenth century conservatism. Levy con- 
sidered a passive twentieth century liberalism. Both, agreed however that Taney was 
no philosopher and preferred to live his jurisprudence rather than think it through. 

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. closed out the New Deal era in Taney scholarship in the 
Age of Jackson. He began with Taney's cabinet years by denying that he acted as 
Jackson's tool, yet admitting that Jackson "dominated" him.'° In evaluating Taney's 
Supreme Court years, Schlesinger, claimed, on the one hand, that the Chief Justice 
"was an advanced radical Democrat," who set out to read his economic predilections 
into the Constitution," yet, on the other hand, stated that "characteristically, the 
Court failed to live up to either the hopes of the radicals or the fears of 
conservatives."" Schlesinger ended his discussion of Taney by reaching into the 
pre-New Deal period, adopting Steiner's latent federalism thesis as an explanation of 
the far reaching nature of Dred Scott, and also likening this "advanced radical 
Democrat" to nationalists Marshall and Hamilton in the case all previous scholars 
relied upon to prove Taney's Jacksonianism, Charles River Bridge. Schlesinger took 
Taney's famous dictum from that case concerning the object and end of government 
and declared that it foreshadowed a basic shift of the Jeffersonian theory in the 
direction of Hamiltonianism. "For," said Schlesinger, "Taney's maxim coul(l|(ifi-E#ly 
be distinguished from observations made by Hamilton and Marshall. . . .'"' 

The influence of Schlesinger's immensely popular book ended general discussions 
of Taney for a decade. On specific points, however, two postwar works should be 
noted. In 1950, Mahlon Hellerich, for the first time in Taney scholarship, held that 
IM^^ V. Borden, did much more than merely state that the Supreme Court cannot 



" Carl Swisher pursued this theme of active conservatism in the same year, though in a rather confusing 
and contradictory way. He first stated that, "The American nation in the time of Taney and Jackson was 
filled with the zest of youth. . . . The preservation of order was the task of government. It was almost the 
sole task." Swisher, "Roger B. Taney and the Tenets of Democracy," p. 212. However, he went on to call 
Taney a champion of internal improvements and the police power, both requiring extensive governmental 
interference. For some superficial expansion and criticisms of Palmer, see Beryl H. Levy, Our ConstitwH^^ 
Tool or Testament? (New York, 1941). 
See note 68. 

" Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Jackson (Boston, 1945), pp. 41, 65, 
Ibid., p. 75, As a result, Schlesinger justified Taney ^ reaction to Luther v. Borden with difficulty, 
accusing Dorr of representing the right of revolution, not the right of society. 
" Ibid., p. 329. 
''Ibid., pp. 516, 517. 



take jurisdiction in political controversies.'" It also recognized a state government's 
inherent power to declare martial law in defense of its sovereignty and gave legal 
sanction to the status quo previously established in Rhode Island by the Charter 
government in 1842. In the same year, Allan Nevins attempted to absolve Justices 
McLean and Curtis of blame for instigating Taney's decision to write and deli^tfT ttre 
majority opinion in Dred Scolt.''° Nevins placed primary responsibility on Taney, 
whose patriotism had been eroded by sectionalism, and who therefore wished to use 
the Court to defend his own people and their institutions, and on Justice Wayne, 
another Southerner, who made the original motion for a broader decision.'* 

m 

After World War 11, Taney scholars increasingly rejected the democratic-populist 
thrust of the New Deal years and adhered closely to a Judicial-supremacy interpreta- 
tion. The Supreme Court by reasserting judicial authority in the 1950's increased its 
influence after many years of self-restraint and defensive reactions, and the Court's 
renewed emphasis upon extralegal arguments in its determinations largely accounted 
for this shift. As a result, scholars reacted more sensitively and approvingly to the idea 
of Court power. Besides this new judicial assertiveness, the enhanced reputation of 
social scientists and psychologists since World War II signalsji a reevaluation of 
environmentalism in an attempt to interpret Taney. 

An early example of these developments appeared in the work of Carl Swisher, who 
in 1965 had an opportunity to review his 1935 work in the light of subsequent 
scholarship." While sticking to previously presented data, Swisher, delving much 
more deeply into environmentalism and the complexities of motivation, reached 
different conclusions. He began by asserting that Taney came to the Supreme Court 
with, among other ideas, a deep sense of local pride in Maryland which easily 
extended to all Southern states and concluded that those attachments explained much 
of Taaey'&i^d^mental attiitudfe, md 9^^. fC constituticml 'iotefp-etations.'^ 

" Mahlon H, Hellerich, "The l.uther Case in the Lower Courts," Rhode Island History, 11, (April, 
1952), pp. 33 45. Hellerich, due to the nature of his study, did not refer to the seeming contradiction 
between Taney's martial law views in Luther and his views on the Prize Cases and ex parte Merrrman. 

Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln. (2 vols.: New York. 1950). II, pp. 473 477. 

Hopkins did not examine this theory or even include it in his major work on the Dred Scott case 
published a year later. See Vincent Hopkins, S.J., Dred Scott's Case (New York, 1951), pp. 53 59. Nevins 
had earlier, in 1942, taken a view which indirectly substantiated Curtis on the territorial question while 
repudiating Taney, See "The Constitution. Slavery, and the Territories" in The Caspar G. Bacon Lectures 
on the Constitution of the United States. 1940 / 9J0( Boston, 1953), pp. 97 141. Randall discussed Taney's 
role during the Civil War more extensively than any other work, covering all the major legal clashes 
between Lincoln and Taney. See James G. Randall. Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln (New York, 
1926). However, in 1957, David Silver, Randall's student, while equally sympathetic toward Lincoln, 
attempted to analyze Taney's motivation where Randall seemed content merely to discuss Taney in 
connection with the specific language of his judicial opinions. David M. Silver. Lincoln's Supreme Court 
(Urbana, 1957). 

"Carl Brent Swisher, "Mr. Justice Taney," in Allison Dunham and Phillip B. Kurland, eds., Mr. 
Justice (Chicago, 1956), pp. »4-228. 
" Ibid., p. 209. 



Roger B. Taney. A Historiograph ical Inquiry 21 




Roger B. Taney. Library of Congress. 

Swisher also emphasized Taney's Southern defensiveness on slavery and stated that 
in matters of legal and social philosophy, Chief Justice Taney remained very much a 
citizen of Maryland: "Whether for good or evil, those convictions were basic to his 
interpretations of constitutional law."" "It is hard for us to envisage the peacefulness 
and the richness of living, for black people and white people alike," in Taney's 
Maryland and many other states, commented Swisher with some of Taney's own love 
for his "country," yet he also felt it hard to comprehend the "seemingly self-willed 
blindness of Taney . . . who refused to look ... to mass-production plantations . . . 
where Negroes were worked to death under the lash of ruthless overseers."*" 
Swisher's catholicity thus led him to combine Steiner's border-state environmentalism 



"Ibid., p. 217. 
Ibid., p. 227. 



22 Maryland Historical Magazirve 



and Umbreit's unworldliness, in an attempt to tie up all loose ends. However, a 
concession to post-1954 revisionism appeared in Swisher's refusal to consider Dred 
Scott an exception to a career of judicial self-restraint. Instead, he edged warily and 
obliquely toward a theory of judicial activism and supremacy.*' 

Signaling a major revision of New Deal historiography, Foster H. Sherwood and 
John Schmidhauser took Swisher's judicial-supremacy inferences and molded them 
into a general interpretation of Taney's career. Sherwood's The Role of the Supreme 
Court in American Government and Politics, probably an edited version of a Charles 
Grove Haines manuscript, isolated three major themes in Taney Court decisions: the 
". . . continued growth of the power of the nation as against that of the states; 
concomitant growth of the federal judicial power; and the development of a basis for 
the protection of property rights, particularly corporate property. . . ."'^ As distin- 
guished from Haines' earlier work which held that these developments occurred 
despite Taney, the later study placed the Chief Justice directly in the conscious center 
of decision making.*^ Schmidhauser continued and even extended the judicial 
supremacy theme in The Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter in Federal-State 
Relations, 1789-1957,^* even when the Court tended to sustain the freedom of state 
legislative authority, it did not base its attitude upon suspicion of federal authority, 
but simply upon the concept that the states have vital roles to play in the operation of 
a truly federal system. The author even found it possible to include parts of the Luther 
V. Borden within his basic theme by declaring that Taney refused to be deterred from 
discussing the right of a state to declare martial law, despite its "political" nature. 
Schmidhauser included a highly sophisticated attempt to reconcile judicial supremacy 
and judicial self-restraint by making the Court the final arbiter of its own jurisdiction, 
whether broad, narrow, or nonexistent, and by maintaining the vitality of the state 
governments without weakening the cardinal principle of federal supremacy. 

The rough places left in this argument were then made plain. In 1960, Robert G. 
McCloskey contended that if one saw the process of adaptation to the contours of a 
changing America in terms of either pure judicial supremacy to pure self-restraint, an 
important point would be missed: "that the result of this adjustment process was to 
fortify the judicial power by creating an atmosphere of public accepyiins* .ffore 



" "As for the impact of the controversy on his subsequent judicial attitudes, his desire to narrow the 
scope of federal judicial power, and to leave vast power of unchecked constitutional interpretation in 
Congress may have yielded to greater confidence injudicial power when men of his own political and social 
philosophy came to dominate the Supreme Court — as witness the reaching out for judicial power in the 
Dred Scott case." Ibid., p. 2 16. Although he used Dred Scott as his only example, one can see that h was an 
example, not an exception — an important shift of balance. 

"Charles Grove Haines and Foster H. Sherwood, The Role of the Supreme Court in American 
Government and Politics, 1835-1864 (Berkeley, 1957). 

" However, one unfortunate aspect was the author's felt need to justify the apparently judicial 
self-restraining Luther v. Borden decision as an exception. They explained with poor logic, givaa Tai^i's 
Civil War opinions, that his decision was based not upon a personal view of judicial self-restraint, we 
pragmatic consideration that the decision might not be obeyed. 

'Mohn R. Schmidhauser, The Supreme Court as the f/«a/ A^lt» im Federal-State Relations, 
1789-1951 (Chapel Hill, 1958). 



Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 



23 




Walker Lewis. Maryland Historical Society. 



complete than the Court had ever before enjoyed."'* McCloskey felt that the Taney 
Court consolidated the most essential judicial gains by a deft combination of tenacity 
and flexibility, and as a result not even the monumental indiscretion of Dred Scott 
could destroy the judicial imperium. The Court felt it necessary to preserve its own 
status as a national tribunal, and thus continence became not an end, but a means 
toward judicial supremacy. 

To prove this thesis, McCloskey interpreted most Taney decisions as promoting 
middle-ground solutions between the extremes of the nationalists and the states' 
rightists, yet still maintaining a line of continuity with the views of John Marshall. 
Despite his attempt at balance, McCloskey's account suffered some traditional 
infirmities. To accentuate moderation and compromise, he had to slide over Dred 



Robert G. McCloskey, The American Supreme Court (Chicago, 1960). 



Scott and Ableman v. Booth, as the "exceptions." Also, the author appeared to clothe 
the Court with conscious motivation in pursuing judicial supremacy through judicial 
self-restraint, while presenting very little supporting evidence. 

By 1960, repetition had made the judicial supremacy emphasis as given, appar- 
ently beyond challenge. Walker Lewis then published Without Fear or Favor, a 
chatty life of Taney, following no recognizable ideological theme whatever.*^ The 
biography, but for one seemingly random insight, could only be distinguished from 
Swisher by its greater use of Taney's family and private correspondence.*' However, 
in presenting Taney's professional and nonprofessional life, Lewis emphasized what 
previous writers had only casually accepted and which had been used merely to 
describe rather than to explain him; 

"The central and ever-recurring problem of the family was health. So much attention did this 
absorb that we may well wonder if they did not attract illness by the very power of their 
concentration. Taney once called himself a 'valetudinarian,' ... a person chronically 

concerned about health. . . . "** 

These and numerous references to what Lewis terms pathological shyness and anxiety 
with people added a provocative new dimension to Taney, the implications of which 
scholars have yet to explore fully. 

Judicial supremacy again engaged a historian's attention in a 1967 article by 
Michael A. Conron on Taney's role in Luther v. Borden.'^ Prior writers, Schmid- 
hauser and Hellerich excepted, arguing for judicial supremacy invariably labeled the 
case sui generis and neglected to analyze it and Taney's opinion fully. However, they 
used the decision to prove judicial self-restraint in political controversies by those 
seeking to uphold judicial compromise and moderation. Conron's inquiry into 
Taney's entire opinion attempted in small part to refute the judicial self-restraint 
theory. He demonstrated that the Chief Justice merely disclaimed jurisdiction by 
holding the Rhode Island controversy purely political in order to protect himself 
from charges of meddling. Taney could then adroitly manipulate his opinion 
ttew^ dftf#er rffc/wm, so as to define the legal issue in terras csSmt^tmsiA s©*eed-gnty, 
designate the responsibilities of the political departments, and prescribe ttle ^^^siwr 
solution to the political question. 

Soon after Conron's article, R. Kent Newmyer's study reitectted iMMied 
McCloskey's argun»»iite/' HeiKlE^ed the entrepreneurial tbe^v#)Krici|i^% ykmm 



" Walker Lewis, Without Fear or Favor (Boston, 1965). 

*' Lewis relied much on elements extraneous to Taney's life and career under the guise of presenting an 
environment for the Chief Justice, such as the Peggy Eaton Affair, which helped elevate Taney to Jackson's 
cabinet, and the Amistad case, 15 Peters 518 (1841) — in neither of which he figures. 

"Ibid., p. 258. According to Lewis, 1%tiiiy overemphasized his-ftsMty and many of his ills were 
psychosomatic. Ibid., pp. 259 260. 

" Michael A. Conron, "Law, Politics, and Chief Justice Taney: A Reconsideration of the Lmher v. 
Borden Decision," American Journal of Legal History, XI (Oct., 1967), pp. 377 388. 

" Ibid., p. 387. 

R. Kent Newmyer, The Supreme Court Under Marshall and Taney (New York, 1968). 



Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 



25 




Roger B. Taney. Maryland Historical Society. 



Meyer's concept of the "venturesome conservative,"'^ in vogue at one time in 
Jacksonian studies, and applied it to the Taney Court. It represented both the 
dominant power group and the large middle-class of Americans, as aspirants to 
progress without loss of what they already had, and seekers after a constitutional 
system permitting change within conservative limits. "In short," said Newmyer, 
"constitutional law under Marshall and Taney was a victory of process over 
substance."'' Aside from the problems inherent in assuming that the Supreme Court 
represented a particular socioeconomic group, especially a Court containing men 
from diverse classes and sections, Newmyer's theory led him into the even more 
dangerous overgeneralization that the "Court accepted without question the cultural 
assumptions of the age."** However, once proven by more scrupulous scholarly 
standards, historians could use the doctrine of "process over substance" as part of a 
comprehensive description of Taney's motivation in promoting judicial supremacy. 

The most recent work on Taney subjected Newmyer's generalizations to a more 
intensive and restricted study. Stanley I. Kutler's monograph on the Charles River 
Bridge case attempted to negate earlier Whig charges of Taney as a strict-construc- 
tionist and agrarian slaveocrat." He held that Taney fashioned a legal doctrine 
justifying "creative destruction — a continuous process whereby new inventions 
and enterprises create new goods and services, and destroy existing ones, all under the 
often empty banner of progress, improvement, and need."®* He reiterated earlier 



See Marvin Meyers. The Jacksonian Persuasion: Politics and Belief (Sianford, 1957), Chaps. 2 and 3. 

""The victory was embodied in a vital, organic Constitution capable of ordering, yet responsive to, 
historical change. The method was amendment by judicial review. The system was adumbrated by the 
Framers of the Constitution, implemented and amplified by the Marshall Court, and tested and verified by 
the Taney Court." Newmyer, Marshall and Tanev, p. 152. 

'"Ibid., pp. 151 152. 

" Stanely 1. Kuller, Privilege and Creative Destruction: The Charles River Bridge Case (Philadelphia, 
1971). 

^nbid., p. 160. 



26 Miaryland M^totrical Magazine 



arguments that Taney adapted the judicial system to the idea of progress and 
contributed to American law by perceiving the economic and technical implications of 
the Charles River Bridge issues.'' 

Kutler's thesis, unfortunately, suffered from the same external problems as 
Newmyer's entrepreneurial generalizations. In addition, Kutler inadvertently revealed 
an internal difficulty, basic to prior works on Taney, especially the non-biographical 
studies. On the one hand, he stated that the law promulgated by Taney seemed not an 
exercise in abstraction, but a synthesis of principle and expediency reflecting the 
innovative and acquisitive values of the American people. Yet, on the other, he saw a 
shadow cast on that synthesis, because the facts of the case did not entirely support 
either his legal doctrines or his noble purposes: 

"The accommodation of innovation, which so concerned Taney did not correlate with the 
models he himself projected . . , The Chief Justice spolce of obsolete property forms that 
thwarted the community's need for improvement and progress; but the legislative decision to 
create a new bridge was not a technological advance. Instead, the purpose was to relieve the 
community of tolls. . . 

In addition, Kutler failed even to cite a series of cases which would have borne out his 
neo-entrepreneurial thesis even more strongly, namely Taney's patent opinions. As 
Kutler compared Taney's and Story's responses to the Charles River Bridge case, he 
might well have denoted a foo^iote qx fSflppidix to a comparison of their patent law 
views. 

V 

Attempts to illuminate Taney's life and career have lifted him from vampire to hero 
aild transformed him from agrarian to nationalist, from judicial abstainer to judicial 
supremacist, and many times back again and in between. Such reversals, overgenerali- 
zations, and contradictions have necessarily created a confused and distorted picture 
of Taney, and despite a century of scholarship, he remains a symbol of civilization, of 
Jacksonianism, of entrepreneurial foresight, or of some other abstraction. Conse- 
quently, Taney as politician, judge, and human being, remains hidden to us. Despite 
the fact that no one has yet worked earlier flashes of insight into Taney's 
unworldliness and ambivalence toward race, economics, and politics into a fully- 
researched legal-historical thesis, these insights still exist. Even though Luther v. 
Borden remains a model of judicial self-restraint, Conron's provocative counter-evi- 
dence stands ready for further exploration. And as legal historians become more 
sensitive to the recurrent references to Taney's health by Lewis, and cognizant of the 
pioneering works done in the area of psychoanalytic history,'" they will be able to 
account for certain of the Chief Justice's associations, attitudes, and opinions, and will 
hopefully add new dimensions to this complex historical figure. 

"Ibid., p. 161. 
"Ibid., p. 170. 

" A.pioneering work on the possible effects of illness on decision-making process is Hugh L'Etang's 
The Pathology of Leadership (New York, 1970). 



Frederick Douglass: 
Maryland Slave to Religious 
Liberal 



WILLIAM L. VAN DEBURG 



Do not class me with those who despise religion — do not identify me with the 

infidel. . . .* 

On APRIL 26, 1870, black abolitionist Frederick Douglass addressed a gathering 
assembled at Philadelphia's Horticultural Hall to celebrate the recent ratification of 
the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a powerful speech, 
Douglass refused to follow the views of the city's black clergy on the subject of God's 
role in the successful anti-slavery crusade. "I dwell here in no hackneyed cant about 
thanking God for this deliverance. . .," he intoned, "my thanks tonight are to willing 
hearts and willing hands that labored in the beginning, amid loss of reputation, amid 
insult and martyrdom, and at imminent peril of life and limb." Wendell Phillips, 
Elijah Lovejoy, John Brown, and Abraham Lincoln were lauded for their contribu- 
tions to the abolitionist cause. The Deity was shunned.' 

Douglass' speech, marking the degree to which he had abandoned the beliefs of his 
youth, was an important milestone in his lifelong journey toward and through 
religious liberalism. This gradual shift in perception of the Godhead is certainly not 
unique among Christians, but the events which furthered the liberalization of his 
theology could be experienced by only one group of nineteenth-century Americans — 
the Negro slave turned freedman. Furthermore, it must be remembered that Douglass 
was definitely not a "common" freedman. His unique experiences as a chattel, 
abolitionist, and author necessitate an individual examination of his changing 
conception of God. 

Young Douglass was exposed to the Biblical concept of a Supreme Being in the 
mid-1820's. One source of information was "Uncle" Isaac Copper, who taught a 
group of thirty slave youngsters the Lord's Prayer, encouraging the pupils' attention 
by the liberal use of a hickory switch. Douglass later wrote, "There was in my mind, 
even at that time, something a little inconsistent and laughable in the blending of 
prayer with punishment." The youngsters were also led to beltew Qo6 w«s gdod 



* Frederick Douglass at Market Hall, New York City. October 22. 1847. 

^Philadelphia Press. April 27, 1870; Herbert Aptheker. "An Unpublished Frederick Douglass Letter," 
Journal of Negro History, XLIV (July, 1959), pp. 278-280. See also Philip S. Foner, Frederick Douglass 
(New York, 1964), p. 269. 



27 



Frederick Dcmgiass 29 



and knew what was best for everyone. White people were made to be rulers, while 
blacks were created as slaves.^ 

Sophia Auld, his master's wife, was a more important influence than "Uncle" 
Isaac. Douglass was fascinated by his mistress' mastery of the printed word and 
delighted in hearing her read the Holy Bible. Quickly denied access to this channel of 
knowledge by Hugh Auld, he became an avid seeker of clandestine printed matter. By 
converting neighborhood white boys into teachers, Douglass learned to read, but soon 
developed a deep loneliness and melancholy. 

When he was thirteen years old, a white Methodist minister caused him to feel that 
he had a friend in God. The young slave did not know exactly what was required of a 
Christian, but he professedly realized that all men were sinners who must repent and 
be reconciled to God. Recalling this conversion experience in later years he noted, "1 
finally found my burden lightened, and my heart relieved. ... I saw the world in a new 
light, and my great concern was to have everybody converted.'" Supported in his 
worship by a devout Negro acquaintance who lived near the Aulds, Douglass 
surrendered himself completely to this new faith in God, eventually establishing a 
Sunday School for fellow bondsmen. 

His reliance on an other-wordly Being could not, however, erase the evidence of the 
slave master's apparent supremacy in purely physical matters. Various owners and 
overseers were at times vicious and brutal. Captain Aaron Anthony savagely whipped 
a young slave woman who had been secretly meeting with her lover. Colonel Edward 
Lloyd laid stripes on a slave mother of five for the heinous crime of "impudence." 
Douglass was deeply moved by "one of the most heart-saddening and humiliating 
scenes" that he had ever witnessed when "Old Barney" was given thirty lashes." 
Descriptions of such observed physical punishments abound in Douglass' writings and 
are too well documented in studies of the plantation system to attribute them to a 
fertile imagination encouraged by the requirements of the anti-slavery lecture circuit. 

He was most disheartened by the blatant hypocrisy exhibited by his two most 
avowedly Christian masters, Thomas Auld and Edward Covey. Captain Auld's 
conversion to Christianity did not modify his treatment of the slaves. "If religion had 
any effect at all on him," Douglass wrote, "it made him more cruel and hateful in all 
his ways."^ No improvement was made in the chattels' swill-like food. Disobedient 
slaves were still whipped, except now Auld quoted Bible verses to justify his deeds. 
After a second Negro Sabbath School was broken up by a group of white Christians, 



^ Frederick Douglass, Life and Times of Frederick Douglass (New York, 1962), p. 43. 

' Ibid., p. 90. Charles Chesnult wrote that Douglass had dreamed of liberty before becoming a Christian, 
but after his conversion he "prayed for it, and trusted in God." Booker Washington wrote that this new 
faith in God enlarged Douglass' mind, restrained his impatience, softened his disposition, and encouraged 
his hope for ultimate freedom. Charles Chesnutt, Fredericic Douglass (Boston, 1899), p. 12; Booker T. 
Washington, Frederick Douglass (Philadelphia, 1906), p. 28, 

' Frederick Douglass, My Bondage and My Freedom (New %^OrK, 1855), p. 1 13. 

' Douglass, Life and Times, p. 109. 



30 Mmsfim^PS^mmti^Mam^me 



Douglass noted that "this conduct, on the part of class-leaders and professedly holy 
men, did not serve to strengthen my religious conviction."* 

Covey was an expert slave breaker as well as a class-leader in the Methodist 
Church. It was certainly not Christian love that enabled Covey to break Douglass in 
body and spirit in the summer of 1834. After his terrifying experiences on the Covey 
farm, the future abolitionist could only reflect that "of all slaveholders with whom 1 
have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst."' 

It was only the freer rein allowed Douglass by William Friedland, an unbeliever, 
that enabled him to reassert his belief in the Christian God. After conducting a 
Sabbath School at the house of a free Negro near the Friedland estate, he was allowed 
to return to Baltimore as an apprentice in the ship-building trade. Douglass promptly 
took advantage of this new freedom and joined the Sharp Street Methodist Church. 
After fleeing to the North in 1838, the twenty-one-year-old ex-slave continued to be 
"religiously inclined," soon becoming a class-leader and licensed preacher m ^Ire 
Negro New Bedford Zion Methodist Church. Nevertheless, as Benjamin Quarles has 
written, the slave whippings and deprivations left "a lasting impression on his plastic 

An extensive analysis of Black Methodism is beyond the scope of this study. For the 
purpose of ascertaining Douglass' acceptance of mainstream Christian doctrine in the 
1840's and 1850's it is sufficient to note that most black Christians viewed God i^»ft 
omnipotent Being who was the final judge of all human actions arvd the just, loving 
force, ever on the side of oppressed peoples.' 

During the pre-Civil War years, Douglass displayed an awareness of an "i«©r<g#»ble 
number of doctrinal issues. His opinions on these issues clearly showed a devotion to 
and a reverence of the Christian God. That God created the earth and then allowed 
sinful man to inhabit its surface was a foregone conclusion in Douglass' mind. In 
1852, at the National Free Soil Convention in Pitt' burgh, he asserted his belief in the 
Supreme Being's omnipotence by declaring, "The earth is God's, and it ought to be 
covered with righteousness, and not slavery." 



"Ibid., p. 111. Mrs. Rowena Auld nearly starved her slaves and yet, "with saintly air," she and her 
husband prayed daily that a merciful God would Mess the chattels "in basket and^efe, afid^sve them at 

last in His Kingdom." (p. 105). 

' Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (Cambridge, I960), p. 110. 

" Benjamin Quarles, "Douglass' Mind in the Making," Phylon, VI, No. I (1945), p. 7; Samual J. May, 
Some Recollections of Our Antislavery Conflict (New York, 1869), p. 293. For a fascinating study of what 
Douglass was likely to hear on Sunday morning see William Pipes, Say Amen, Brother! Old Time Negro 
Preaching: A Study in American Frustration (New "» ork, 19^1). 

' Benjamin Mays, The Negro's God as Reflected in Hts Literature {Nevi York, 1968), p. 126. For a more 
complete study of the black Methodists see Dwight Culver, Negro Segregation in the Methodist Church 
(New Haven, 1953), pp. 42-60; Joseph Hartzell, "Methodism and the Negro," Journal of Negro History, 
VIII (July, 1923), pp. 301 315; William Gravely, "Early Methodism and Slavery," Wesleyan Quarterly 
Review, II (May, 1965), pp. 84 100; Jeffrey Brackett, The Negro in Maryland: A Study of the Institution 
of Slavery (Battimofe: Johms 'M^^M'Wlffwrsity Studies in Historical 9^0m, '^tktP- 

205-206. 

'° Speech at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August II, 1852, in Philip S. Foner, ed., The Life and Writings of 
Frederick Douglas (4 vols.; New York, 1950- 1955), II, p. 206. 



Frederick Douglass 31 




Wendell Phillips. Library of Congress. 



The Creator was also the Supreme Judge of the Universe. Even as a child, Douglass 
attributed an approaching cholera epidemic to a God who was "angry with the white 
people because of their slaveholding wickedness" and therefore, sought to punish the 
wrongdoers." In an 1847 letter to aged slaveholder-statesman Henry Clay, Douglass 
reminded him that he must soon appear before God to "render up an account" of his 
stewardship. The abolitionist asked Clay if he thought that God would hold him 
guiltless if he died without freeing his chattels.'^ Again in January 1848, Douglass 
noted the power of his God, when, in a protest against the Mexican War, he pleaded 
for an end of hostilities and the recall of American troops. If such action was not 



" Douglass, Life and Times, p. 89. 
Douglass to Henry Clay, in North Star, Dec. 3. 1847. 



31 Maryland Historical Magaztr^e 



taken, "so sure as there is a God of justice," the entire nation would be punished for 
their acceptance of the cruel "slaveholding crusade"." Slaveholders supporting the 
war would be held responsible "at the judgement, in the sight of a just God." 

Douglass believed that God created all men as equals and endowed them with 
strength and intellect through the workings of his grace and wisdom. Before he began 
his extensive search for Christian knowledge, the young chattel became perplexed and 
worried over the contradiction in plantation theology which posited the existence of a 
"good" God who allowed the "bad" institution of slavery to prosper. Not until he 
overheard one of his co-laborers explaining how blacks were captured and brought to 
America in chains did he realize that inequality was a man-made condition.'* In an 
1849 newspaper article Douglass encouraged fellow Negroes to continue their upward 
climb out of the intellectual and spiritual darkness imposed by slavery. Clearly 
championing human equality, he echoed the words in The Acts of the Apostles by 
noting that God was "no respecter of persons, and hath made of one blood all nations 
for to dwell upon all the face of the earth."'* 

In exposing white America's fear of Negro equality in an 1850 article, Douglass 
exhibited his belief in the ability of God to strengthen and rehabilitate a depressed 
people. The Negro "stands erect," he wrote, "upon his brow he bears the seal of 
manhood, from the hand of the living God." " 

Not only did Douglass believe in a God-given physical strength, but he also ascribed 
the molding of man's mental capabilities to the Supreme Being. In an 1846 speech at 
Moorfields, England, the fiery abolitionist urged British Christians to condemn 
slavery in the United States because it destroyed the chattel's intellect, a faculty which 
was given to all people by the God of Creation.'* 

Douglass held that all of these gifts were made possible by God's grace, which was 
"sufficient" to enable him to escape slavery's shackles, and by the workings of the 
Creator's own powers of intellect as revealed in the Scriptures." Heavenly wisdom 
was pure, peaceable, gentle, easily entreated, full of mercy and without partiality or 
hypocrisy.''" He often compared these characteristics of God's rule to the popular 
slaveholding interpretation of the Holy Bible which "makes God a rc^e©ter of 
persons, denies his fatherhood of the race, and tramples in the dust the great trath of 
the brotherhood of man."" 

The most important theological issue raised by Douglass was his attempt to show 
that a wise God invariably entered into the thoughts and actions of men, allying with 



''North Star, Jan. 21, 1848. 

'* Douglass, My Bondage, p. 19). 

"Douglass to Thomas Auld, in Liberator, Sept. 22, 1848. 
"■North Star, Jan. 19, 1849. 
"North Star, June 13, 1850. 

" Speech at Moorfields, England, May 22, 1846, in My Bondage, Appendix, p. 408. 
" Douglass to Thomas Auld, in Liberator, Sept. 22, 1848. 

"Speech at Moorfields, England, May 22, 1846, in My Bondage, Appendix, p. 416. 
Frederick Douglass, Oration Delivered in €m%»th im Hall (RooiieMec, 18S2), p-.. 29. 




John Brown. Library of Congress. 



34 Maryland Historical Magazine 



the forces of right against the powers of evil. Douglass was certain of God's support 
when he proclaimed, "He who has God and conscience on his side, has a majority 
against the universe." The Supreme Rule would "bring to naught" the councils of 
the ungodly and "confound the wisdom of the crafty." Moreover, it was quite simple 
to enlist God in a noble cause. In a letter to Henry Clay, he used the ideas expressed in 
Isaiah 58:9 to support his case for emancipation.^^ 

Without supernatural aid, slavery would be a continuing menace to the black man. 
God, decreeing that America should have no peace until she repented, was responsible 
for supporting the abolitionists in their crusade. Indeed, it was "a happy 
interposition of God" that Douglass was able to "burst up through the dark 
incrustation of malice and hate" to become an anti-slavery lecturer.^* He confidently 
believed that the "forces" of Heaven would eventually destroy the chattel system. 
"The arm of the Lord is not shortened and the doom of slavery is certain." ^' Certainly 
nothing but God's truth and love could "cleanse the land" of its most d^piesiie 
institution." 

In addition to this deep faith in God's ability to further the abolitionist cause, he 
also mirrored mainstream black Christianity in his condemnation of those who relied 
on the powers of reason instead of on a just Creator. In 1852, Douglass condemned 
the writings of Voltaire, Bolingbroke, and Thomas Paine as infidelic.^' A year later, 
he blasted a group of fellow reformers for their questioning of the Holy Bible's 
authority. The Bible was a sacred text. To disregard its power would be as foitisil^s 
it would be "to fling away the Constitution."'" 

It would be a mistake, however, to portray Douglass as a piously conservative 
Christian. His biographers have correctly noted that he was not orthodox in his 
doctrine. His belief that religion should be used as an instrument for social 
reconstruction led him to despise the passive attitude shown by many Negro ministers. 

As he progressed in his abilitionist career, Douglass was influenced by those 
champions of Reason, Transcendentalism, and Unitarianism whose doctrines he had 
condemned. In an 1848 essay, he noted that the destiny of the Negro race was 
oowifliitl^ to human hands. God was not wholly responsible for freeing those in 



"Speech at PiUsburgh, Pennsylvania, August II, 1852, in Foner, Life and Writings, II, p. 209. 

" Frederick Douglass, "The Folly of Our Opponents," in The Liberty Bell (Boston, 1845), p. 168. See 
also speech at New York City, Oct. 22, 1847, in National Anti-Slavery Standard, Oct. 28, 1847; North 
Star, Feb. 8, 1850. 

" Douglass to Henry Clay, in North Star, Dec. 3, 1847. Douglass cited God's promise by writing: "then 
shalt thou call and the Lord shall answer, thou shah cry and he will say. Here I am." 
" Douglass to Samuel Hanson Cox, Oct. 30, 1846, in Liberator, Nov. 27, 1846. 
" Speech at New York City, May 11, 1847, in National Anti-Slavery Standard, May 20, 1847. 
" Douglass, Oration, p. 37. 

" Speech at New York City, Oct. 22, 1847, in Natiamt MmiSSavery Standard, Oct. 28, 1847. 

^' Douglass, Oration, p. 29. 

"Frederick Douglass, Two Speeches (Rochester, 1857), p. 45. See also speech at London, England, 
March 30, 1847, in Foner, Life and Writings, I, p. 217; Benjamin Quarles, Frederick Douglass (Washing- 
ton, D.C., 1948), p. 105. 



Frederick Douglass 35 




Henry Ward Beecher. Library of Congress. 



bondage.^' By 1853, he was willing to criticize Henry Ward Beecher's reliance on God 
to end slavery. If Beecher had been a slave, Douglass noted, he would have been 
"whipped . . . out of his willingness" to wait for the power of Christian faith to breai< 
his chains. 

Increasingly, enlightenment terminology crept into Douglass' writings and 
speeches. Negroes were adjudged to be "free by the laws of nature."" The slaves' 



" North Star, July 14, 1848. 

"Benjamin Quarle.s, "Abolition's Diiferent Drummer, " in Martin Duberman, ed., The Antislaverv 
Vanguard (Princeton, 1965), p. 127; Annual Report of the American Anii-Slaverv Society for 1853 (New 
York, 1853), pp. 51, 55. 

"Speech at Chicago, Nov., 1854, in Foner, Life and Writings, II, p. 317. 



'-^ MaryMli44iNiMH4^ Magazine 



claim to freedom was "backed up by all the ties of nature, and nature's God."^'' 
Man's right to liberty was self-evident since "the voices of nature , of conscience, of 
reason, and of revelation, proclaim it as the right of all rights. . . ."^^ 

An important factor acting to liberalize Douglass' theological views was his 
association with fellow abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. The turbulent editor of 
The Liberator had been an orthodox Baptist who looked to the Church as God's 
appointed instrument for ending slavery. The Holy Bible was both a source of 
spiritual power and the arsenal from which he selected his anti-slavery weapons. 
Garrison broke violently with the clergy after they criticized his methodology.^" In 
denouncing the churches as a hindrance to abolitionism and true Christianity, h§ 
undoubtedly influenced his young black protege who believed the abolitionists to be 
the "most pure, enlightened and benevolent" people in the country." 

Douglass was also affected by the words of transcendentalist preacher Theodore 
Parker. The minister's ideas on the perfectibility of man and the sufficiency of natural 
religion were eventually incorporated in the abolitionist's epistemology. In 1854, 
Douglass noted, "I heard Theodore Parker last Sabbath. No man preaches more 
truth than this eloquent man, this astute philosopher. . . 

Another outstanding influence on his increasingly liberal conception of God was 
Robert Ingersoll, a militant agnostic who befriended him on a trip to Illinois. Appalled 
by the lack of compassion shown him by Midwest Christians, Douglass wrote, "to be 
an infidel no more proves a man to be selfish, mean, and wicked, than to be 
evangelical proves him to be honest, just, and humane." This charge was to be 
repeated time and again in his writings. 

By April 1870, and his speech at Horticultural Hall, Douglass held a much different 
concept of God than he had as a young man. As he explained the reasons for his break 
with the Garrisonians in March I860, Douglass spoke of such a change: 

I have been very much modified both in feeling and opinion within the last fourteen years. 
Subsequent experience and reading have led me to examine [opinions] for myself. This has 
brought me to other conclusions. When I was a child, I thought and spoke as a child.*" 

His faith in God's ability to destroy the slave system was weakened by the passage 
of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 and by the Dred Scott decision of 1857, both of 



*' Douglass' Monthly, Jan., 1859. 
" Douglass, Two Speeches, p. 32. 

"Goldwin Smith, miliam Lloyd Garrison (New York, 1892), p. 109; J<jl» J»y Qiapman, Wm«m 
Lloyd Garrison (Boston, 1921), pp. 164-165; Oliver Johnson, fVilliam tf»0 GarrisoH mt ffis Times 
(*0ston, 1880), p. 67. 

" Douglass to Thomas Auld, in Liberator, Sept. 22, 1848. See also Quarles, "Douglass' Mind," p. 5. 
Quarles noted that the ten-year association with the Garrisonian reformers "pbvioasLy Mtiemi into the 
fabric of his thinking." 

J. JR. Balme, American Slates, Churches, and Slavery (E{ti»b^{g^X^2), p. 221. Sbtalso Washington, 
Fre^dk Douglass, p. 321; Douglass' Monthly, July, 1860. 

" Douglass, Life and J^mm, #2; QiiiiTles, Frederick DouglasSi^<^. 293 294. 
"Speech at Glasgow, SBwi*«», MifOi 26, I860, in Foner, Life Otg-Wmngs, 1[, p. 480. 



Frederick Douglass 37 




Frederick Douglass. Library of Congress. 



which appeared to end all hope of speedy emancipation. With this abandonment of 
God, Douglass came to the conclusion that only man, aided by the laws of nature, 
could solve earthly problems. Furthered in this belief by the Civil War's seemingly 
godless brutality, he asserted that even if the Confederacy defeated the Union Army, 
"nature with the aid of free discussion would set herself right in the end. Great is 
truth, great is humanity, and they must prevail.'"" 

Douglass took another large step toward a humanistic theology just one week 
before the Philadelphia address. On April 19, 1870, he spoke at the American 
Anti-Slavery Society convention in New York City. Noting that many others had 



" Speech at New York City, Feb., 1863, in Douglass' Monthly, March, 1863. 



38 Maryland HMMiaKveal Magazine 



thanked God for the success of the abolition movement, he thanked "those faithful 
men and women, who have devoted the great energies of their soul to the welfare of 
mankind," for the victory over slavery. It was only through such individuals that he 
could "get a glimpse of God anywhere."" This oration, along with the Philadelphia 
ratification speech mirrored the change that had been wrought in Douglass' thinking. 
Man had become the prime mover in his life. 

Philadelphia's black Christian leadership raged at Douglass' seemingly blatant 
apostasy. A group of the city's leading ministers met at Bethel Colored Methodist 
Episcopal Church to formulate an appropriate answer to this doctrinal challenge, lest 
his observations gain widespread acceptance. Reverend James Williams sorrowfully 
rebuked the abolitionist, declaring, "We admire Frederick Douglass, but we love God 
more." He was confident that the errant one would change his views when shown the 
new creed's inherent falsity. Reverend Isaac C. Weir believed that Douglass had 
received so many ego-building honors and compliments that it was "not surprtsifrg 
that he has fallen." 

The fifty-year-old ex-slave was also condemned for his stand in opposing the 
retention of Bible study in the public schools. Douglass believed that the use of the 
King James version was unfair to Roman Catholics and that church and state should 
be completely separated. In addition to registering his amazement at Douglass' 
support of a man-centered theology. Reverend J. Frisby Cooper asserted that barring 
the Bible from the schools would be the first step in its removal from the nation's 
churches and courts. Without God's word, the land would be subjected to an age of 
crime and lawlessness. Surely Douglass' quest for "notoriety" and "popularity" was a 
"fatal mistake" since it led him to support such a godless position.*' 

The final list of resolutions agreed upon by the ministers contained a damning 
condemnation of Douglass' views. In brusque language the clerics wrote, "We wifl not 
acknowledge any man as a leader of our people who will not thank God for the 
deliverance and enfranchisement of our race, and will not vote to retain the Bible, the 
book of God in our public schools" ** 

In a blistering open letter to the Philadelphia Press, Douglass answered the critics 
by reaffirming his position, denouncing religious intolerance and stating that he would 
not yield to ministerial pressure. He accused the black ministers of conducting a sham 
trial, rooted in religious malice that was reminiscent of the Middle Ages. If the 
ministers would work to reform the "character, manners, and habits" of the 
"festering thousands" of Philadelphia Negroes, they would do more to prove their 
churches sound than by "passing any number of worthy resolutions about thanking 
God.""' 

By June 1870, Douglass appeared to be resigned to his role of "infidef tnd 



" Aptheker, "Letter," p. 279. 

" Foner, Frederick Douglass, pp. 270 271; Philadelphia Press, May 19, 1870. 
" Aptheker, "Letter," pp. 280-281; Philadelphia Press, May 19, 1870. 
" mtuUi^mm, "mmM l$m»mm.>Merick Douglass, p. 272. 



Frederick Douglass 39 




Theodore Parker. Library of Crongress. 



perfectly convinced that his man-centered beliefs were correct. He wrote, 

I liave no doubt that the avowal of my liberal opinions will drive many from me who were 
once my friends and even exclude me from many platforms upon which 1 was a welcome 
speaker, but such is the penalty which every man must suffer who admits a new truth into his 
mind. ... I deem it wise to avow those [convictions] which are perfectly formed, clearly 
defined, and about which I am entirely undisturbed by doubts of any sorts.'" 

Near the end of his life, a final echo of reliance upon man's power was heard. In a 
convincing address on the "self-made man." Douglass criticized those who believed 
the laws of God to be perfect and unchangeable. In fact, he asserted that individuals 
who ascribed "success and failure, wealth and poverty, intelligence and ignorance, 
liberty and slavery. . to a Supreme Being's actions were superstitious believers in a 



Aptheker, "Letter," p. 278. 



^ Maryland Htstortcat Magazine 



hoax akin to fortune-telling or divination.'" Faith, in the absence of works, was 
"worth little."*' Self-made men were "indebted to themselves for themselves. ... If 
they have ascended high, they have built their own ladder," *^ There is little doubt that 
he considered himself to be in this category — a struggling, yet confident mortal who 
ffelt no need of super-natural assistance. 

Since Douglass' biographers have neglected to analyze, and to a considerable 
extent, even to record such a change in his religious views, it is necessary to ascertain 
the reasons for his drift toward a liberal concept of God. 

He certainly despised those "religious" slaveholders of his youth, but his continuing 
faith in God and his active church life in New Bedford contradict any assumption that 
tire slavery experience was an exclusive liberalizing force. 

The influence of Garrison, Parker, and IngersoU was great, but none of these men 
remained in close and continual contact with Douglass in the post-Civil War years, the 
time of his greatest theological change. 

The Dred Scott decision, the Fugitive Slave Act and the Civil War undoubtedly 
eawsed Douglass much heartache. They were influential in modifying his concept of 
a ja»t Creator who was working convincingly and completely to destroy the ungodly. 
Nevertheless, other aspects of Douglass' experience must be analyzed before wc can 
find a satisfactory explanation for his gradual abandonment of the traditional 
Gocfhcad. 

As he traveled abroad, the ex-chattel discovered that the poverty and destitution of 
slavery was in many respects a universal condition of the world's lowest classes. This 
observed contrast between the world's rich and poor deepened Douglass' belief in 
a religion that best served the interests of mankind to the exclusion of doctrinal 
complexity and rigidity in the puritanical sense. 

After viewing Dublin's wretched masses in 1846, he asked, "Where is your religion 
that takes care for the poor. . . .Where are its votaries — what are they doing?" 
Douglass answered his own question by noting that believers were "wasting their 
energies in useless debate on hollow creeds and points of doctrine. . . ." Wrongs and 
sufferings "of any part of the great family of man" could not be allowed. "I am not 
only an American slave," he wrote, "but a man, and as such, am bound to use my 
powers for the welfare of the whole human brotherhood."'" 

On a visit to England he could not refrain from criticizing the clergy who had 
appealed to Liverpool authorities to break up the local soup kitchen. A footpath used 
by parishoners was continually crowded with multitudes of starving Irish, thtiS causing 
"inconvenience" to those on their way to worship.^' 

Douglass was also depressed by the backwardness of Dominicans and Haitians in 



"Speech on self-made men, n.d., Douglass Papers, Library of Congress. See also Frederic May 
Holland, Frederick Douglass: The Colored Orator (New York, 1969. Reprint of 1895 edition), p. 250; 
Foner, Frederick Douglass, p. 405. 

Speech on self-made men, n.d., Douglass Papers; Holland, Colored Orator, p. 252. 
Holland, Colored Orator, p. 251; Speech on self-made men, n.d., Douglass Papers. 
" Douglass to William Lloyd Garrison, in Liberator, March 27, 1846. 
" Balme, American States, p. 218. 



Frederick Douglass 41 




Robert G. Ingersoll. Library of Congress. 

the Caribbean. Haiti "was the first to be invaded by the Christian religion. . . . She 
was the first to see a Christian church and to behold the cross of Christ. She was also 
the first to witness the bitter agonies of the North bending under the blood-stained 
lash of Christian slave-holders."*^ 

These thoughts, along with the continual recitation of slavery's evils that his 
abolitionist career demanded, combined with an ever-present feeling of anti-clerical- 
ism, were furthered by the Reconstruction era's generally broader view of religious 
orthodoxy. Together they changed Douglass' mind as to the power of God. In sum, 
Douglass became more liberal in his view of the Godhead because he was discouraged 
over the contradiction between Christian theory and practice.^' 

Speech at Chicago, January 2, 1893, in Foner, Life and Writings, IV, p. 478. 
" For a more complete discussion of post-Civil War religious thought see Aaron I. Abbell, The Urban 
Impact on American Protestantism, 1865-1900 (Cambridge, 1943); Frank H. Foster, The Modern 
Movement in American Theology (New York, 1939); Charles H. Hopkins, The Rise of the Social Gospel in 
American Protestantism, 1865-1915 (New Haven, 1940). 



42 Maryland Historical Magazine 




William Lloyd Garrison. Library of Congress. 



Constantly recounting the hypocrisy shown by the slaveholder who could "pray at 
morning, pray at noon, and pray at night" and still "lash up my poor cousin by his two 
thumbs and inflict stripes and blows upon his bare back, till the blood streamed to the 
ground! all the time quoting scripture, for his authority . . Douglass convinced 
himself that "prejudice goes into the church of God." According to the pious white 
Christian, the kingdom of heaven was like a fisherman's net. When the net was drawn 
ashore, the Christians sat down to cull out the fish. Some of the fish had "rather black 
scales, so these were sorted out and packed by themselves."*'' 

Even in New Bedford, Douglass encountered hypocrisy among God's servants. 



"Speech at Plymouth County Anti-Slavery Society, Dec, 1841, in National Anti-Slavery Standard, 
Dec. 23, 1841. 



ifiMiiKidc Douglass 43 



When he attempted to attend a revival meeting in a white church, he was met by a 
deacon who told him "in a pious tone, 'we don't allow niggers in here!""^ While in 

Scotland he directed his efforts toward exposing the conduct of the Free Church in 
holding fellowship with slaveholders and in "taking Slave money to build free 
churches.'"" 

In the 1840's Douglass decided that slavery had "no champions so bold, brave and 
uncompromising" as the ministers of religion. The Church was "beyond all question, 
the chief refuge of slavery.'"' 

By 1870, his belief in the contradiction between Christian theory and practice had 
developed into a rejection of the Supreme Bemg. The ministers had done nothing for 
the abolition of slavery but tell others that "God would abolish slavery in his own 
good time." Too often, in the heat of anti-slavery battle he had been told to trust in 
God. Now that the struggle was ended, Douglass could not imagine an other-worldly 
force destroying slavery. He could only thank the men whom he had relied upon 
throughout the ante-bellum years, men who were not unmindful of the Negroes' 
plight. 

In July 1886, Douglass summed up his post-war views of a Christianity whose 
central character was not now a viable part of his theology. "It is something to give 
the Negro religion," he wrote. "It is more to give him the ballot. It is something to tell 
him that there is a place for him in the Christian's heaven, it is more to let him have a 
place in this Christian country to live upon in peace." ^' Douglass' trip toward and 
through religious liberalism ended in the rejection of God's power and in the 
veneration of man and his reforms. 



" Douglass lo William Lloyd Garrison, in Liberator. Jan. 30, 1846. 
" Douglass to Maria Chapman, March 29, 1846, in Foner, Life and Writings, 1. p. 144. 
" Speech at London, March 30, 1847, in Foner, Lifeand Writings, I, p. 214. For Douglass' exceptions to 
this blanket condemnation see Douglass, Oration, p. 31. 
" Aptheker, "Letter," p. 280. 

" Douglass to W. H. Thomas, July 16, 1886, in Foner, Life and Writings, IV, p. 444. 



The Effects of the Civil War on 
Southern Protestantism 



W. HARRISON DANIEL 



The devastating effects of the Civil War were probably as severe on 
Southern institutions as they were upon the populace and the economy of the region. 
All branches of Protestantism were scarred and afflicted by four years of war. The 
programs and activities of the different denominations were severely curtailed or 
suspended during the war. The foreign mission enterprise of all the larger Protestant 
churches reached a standstill. No new missionaries were sent out, and mission stations 
in Asia, Africa, and South America were separated from their home churches. Some 
of the missionaries returned to America, but most of them labored at their task during 
the war years.' Some missionaries secured secular employment to earn a livelihood; 
Young J. Allen, a Methodist, accepted a position with the Chinese government, and 
Matthew T. Yates, a Baptist, supported himself and another missionary family as a 
result of his real estate transactions and employment as interpreter for the municipal 
council of the foreign community at Shanghai. Other missionaries were granted credit 
by local merchants, making possible their survival. These debts, plus accumulated 
back salary, resulted in missionary debts for the Southern Baptist Convention and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The Baptists had a foreign missionary debt of 
$10,000, and the Methodists one of $60,000 when the war ended. ^ Domestic mission 



'George B. Taylor, Life and Times of James B. Taylor (Philadelphia, 1872), p. 254; Archibald T. 
Robertson, Life and Letters of John Albert Broadus (Philadelphia, 1901), pp. 180, 192; Robert E. 
Thompson, A History of the Presbyterian Churches in the United Stales (New York, 1895), p. 159; Edgar 
L. Pennington, "The Organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of 
America," Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Vol. 17 (Dec, 1948), p. 329; G. 
MacLaren Brydon, "The Diocese of Virginia in the Southern Confederacy," Historical Magazine of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, Vol. 17 (Dec, 1948), p. 401; The American Annual Cyclopaedia and Reg- 
ister of Important Events of the Year 1863 (New York. 1869), p. 161; Proceedings of the Southern Bap- 
tist Convention at its Eighth Biennial Session, Held in the First Baptist Church, Savannah, Georgia, 
May 10-13, 1861 (Richmond, 1861), pp. 48 55; Gross Alexander, A History of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South (New York, 1911), pp. 120 125. 

^ P. A. Peterson, Hand-Book of Southern Methodism. Being A Digest of the History and Statistics 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. South, From 1845 1882 (Richmond, 1883), p. 56; Minutes of the 
Rappahannock Baptist Association, 1864; Minutes of the Rappahannock Baptist Association, May 
29 31, 1865; Minute Book of the Roanoke Baptist Association, 1862, Virginia Baptist Historical Society, 
University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia; Charles £". Taylor, The Story of Yates the Missionary, 
As Told in His Letters and Reminiscences (Nashville, 1898), pp. 147, 150; Alexander, History of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, p. 262; Taylor, Life and Times of Taylor, p. 270; American Annual 
Cyclopaedia, J 863, p. 161. 



44 



tll«ili>j^ fiN« Civil War 45 



programs were also curtailed as the various denominations focused attention upon 
army missions.^ 

The exigencies of war prompted churchmen to give increased attention to 
benevolent programs. Ministers were active in agencies to aid soldiers and to care for 
their dependents. The Reverend Robert W. Barnwell of South Carolina organized Me4 
supervised hospitals in Charlottesville and in Richmond, Virginia, to care for troops 
from his state.'' C. K. Marshall performed a similar service for Mississippi troops, and 
M. W. Crumley, a Methodist clergyman, served as superintendent of Georgia 
hospitals in Richmond from January, 1 862, until the end of the war.'* Thomas Caskey, 
a clergyman, was appointed to direct the soldiers' hospital at Oxford, Mississippi, and 
the Reverend Thomas Teasdale conducted a canvas in that state to raise funds to 
establish an orphanage for the children of soldiers. In 1864 a group of ministers in 
Richmond, Virginia, formed a society to furnish artificial limbs to maimed soldiers." 

All of the denominations appointed committees or formed agencies to solicit funds 
and supplies for needy soldier families, and in hospital centers like Richmond, 
Virginia, many ladies of the different churches served as nurses.' In August, 1861, 
Stephen Elliott, Bishop of the Diocese of Georgia, issued a pastoral letter to his 
parishioners. He instructed Protestant Episcopal clergymen in each parish to form an 
organization to prepare and purchase bandages, clothing, medicine, and foodstuffs for 
use in military hospitals. Each parish was to submit monthly reports to the bishop, 
listing the number of articles prepared, collected, distributed, and on hand. Elliott's 
letter also urged Christians to volunteei; tbeir services as army nurses.' 



' See W. Harrison Daniel, "Southern Protestantism and Army Missions in The Confederacy," Mis- 
sissippi Quarterly, Vol. 17 (Fall, 1964), pp. 179-191. 

' James W. Ration, ed., Minutes of the Proceedings of the Greenville Ladies' Association in Aid of the 
Volunteers of the Confederate Army (Durham, 1937), p. 20; Minutes of the Bethel Baptist Association. 
Seventy-Third Anniversary, Held at Beaver Creek Church, Fairfield District, South Carolina, September 
26, 1862 (cover to publication missing), p. 5. 

° Report of the Executive Committee of the Georgia Relief and Hospital Association to the Board of 
Superintendents, with the Proceedings of the Board, Convened at Augusta, Georgia, October 29, 1862 
(Augusta, 1862), pp. 3, 9, 32; Augusta, Southern Christian Advocate, Oct. 13, 1864; Charleston, Southern 
Christian Advocate, Jan. 16, 1862. 

° Thomas W. Caskey, Caskey's Last Book, Containing An Autobiographical Sketch of His Ministerial 
Life, with Essays and Sermons (Nashville. 1896), pp. 42 43; Thomas C. Teasdale. Reminiscences and 
Incidents of A Long Life (St. Louis, 1887), p. 185; Petersburg, Army and Navy Messenger, Feb. 1, 1864. 

' Minutes of the Synod of North Carolina, Oct. 29, 1864, Historical Foundation of the Presbyterian 
and Reformed Churches, Montreal, North Carolina; Minute Book of the Fluvanna Baptist Church, 
Saturday Before the first Sunday, May, 1864; Minute Book of the Mattaponi Baptist Church, January 
1 1, 1862, Virginia Baptist Historical Society; Minutes of the Lexington Presbytery, Held at Mt. Horeb 
Church, Sept. 6, 1861, Union Theological Seminary Library, Richmond, Virginia; Richmond, Christian 
Observer, Feb. 23, 1865; Minutes of the Forty-Fourth Session of the Alabama Baptist Association, Held 
with the Bethany Baptist Church. Lownda County. Alabama, October 9 -12, 1863 (Montgomery, 1863), 
pp. 3, 6; Richmond, Religious Herald, Oct. 2, 1861: Richmond, Richmond Christian Advocate, Sept. 
12, 1861; Raleigh, Church Intelligencer, March 28, Nov. 12, 1862; Wyndham B. Blanton, The Making of 
A Downtown Church (Richmond, 1945) pp. 293 294. 

° Edgar L. Pennington, "The Confederate Episcopal Church and the Southern Soldiers," Historical 
Magazine of the Protestam Epimxif^&mi^ch, Vol. 17 (Dec, 1948), p. 361. 



46 Maryland Historical Magazine 



An ambitious effort to care for the children of deceased and disabled soldiers was 
undertaken by the Protestant Episcopal Church in Alabama. This program was 
inaugurated by Bishop Richard H. Wilmer in the fall of 1864. At this time the Diocese 
of Alabama established orphanages at Tuscaloosa, Montgomery, and Mobile, and 
Wilmer created the order of Deaconesses of Alabama to staff them. Rebecca Hewitt 
was appointed chief deaconess; she and her associates, who served without remunera- 
j tion, labored in the orphanages. They taught and cared for the children and visited the 

aged and infirm in the parishes.' 

In 1862 the North Carolina Synod of the Presbyterian Church appointed a 
committee to collect funds for the education of soldier orphans; this committee 
functioned until the end of the war and prompted Presbyterians in other areas to 
emulate their effort.'" In other instances the church did not undertake the task of 
caring for soldier orphans until it became obvious that the state was not going to make 
adequate provisions for the children. In 1863 and 1864 the Baptists in Georgia 
requested the state legislature to erect an orphanage. When their appeals were not 
heeded, the denomination, in 1864, organized the Soldiers' Orphanage Association. 
Trustees were appointed, and H. H. Tucker was named general agent to solicit 
- funds." 

In 1864 the Baptist General Association of Virginia appointed a seven-man 
committee "to adopt some provisional plan for the education of [soldier orphans] 
during the next twelve months" and to report at the next meeting of the Association. 

I In a short time a plan was devised and put into operation. The committee decided that 

the program was to be free from sectarian, sectional, or class restrictions and that an 
appeal would be made for funds from all citizens, explaining that all monies received 
would be used to pay the tuition of orphans who would receive instruction in their 
home areas. The appeal received a favorable response, and in 1865 the corresponding 

j secretary of the committee, A. E. Dickinson, reported that contributions of $200,000 

had been received and between 700 and 800 children had been assisted.'^ Baptists in 
other areas also made efforts to care for soldier orphans." 

At a meeting of bishops and other leading churchmen in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, held at Montgomery, Alabama, in the summer of J 864, a resolution 
was adopted which stated that it was the duty of the church to care for the children of 

'Charlotte, Church Intelligencer, December 14, 21, 1864; Waller C. Whitaker, History of the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church in Alabama, 1763-1891 (Birmingham, 1898), pp. 168 169. 
I '° D. 1. Craig, A History of the Development of the Presbyterian Church in North Carolina (Rich- 

mond, 1907), p. 33; Columbia, Southern Presbyterian, Nov. 10, 1864. 

Historv of the Baptist Denomination in Georgia, With Biographical Compendium and Portrait 
Gallery of Baptist Ministers and Other Georgia Baptists (Atlanta, 1881), p. 235; Macoti, Christian Index, 
Sept. 2, 1864. 

"Religious Herald, July 7, 1870; Minuter f the Bapliu General Association of Virginia, Held in the 
City of Richmond, June I, 1865 (Richmond, 1866), p. 30. 

Christian Index, Feb. 2, 1865; Livingston Johnson, History of the North Carolina Baptist State 
Convention (Raleigh, 1908), p. 71; Minutes of the Fortv-Third and Forty-Fourth Anniversaries of the 
State Convention of the Baptist Denomination in South ( arolina. Held m W<SMligtm, July M^t:9t^3 
and at Greenville, July 29 -August I, 1864 (Columbia, 1864), p. 206. 



Effects of the Civil War 



47 




Rev. L. F. Drake preaching at Camp Dick Robinson, Kentucky, 1861. Library of Congress. 



deceased soldiers. Each conference was requested to make pKivisions for the care of 
its own orphans and widows. An example of how this resolution was implemented 
might be seen in the program of the Mobile Conference. This conference created a 
Soldier's Orphan Association and appointed William W. Wightman, chairman of a 
twelve-man committee, to direct its operations. The directive of this committee 
requested that the presiding elders in each district should bring to the attention of their 
quarterly meetings the needs of orphans. The elders were to secure the names of 
destitute orphans and suggest places where they might be cared for and placed in 
school. Funds to support this program were collected in local churches and forwarded 
to Wightman. His report to the Conference in November, 1864, stated that $13,559 
had been received.'* 

Churches in all areas which were invaded by federal forces suffered from 
desecration and damage of property. Church buildings, equipment, records, and 
parsonages were often attacked and destroyed. Evidence seems to substantiate the 
claim that losses of this type were perpetrated by the federal forces to a degree far 
exceeding military necessity." An Illinois infantryman, writing about the federal 

Richmond Christian Advocate, Aug. 18, 1H64; Minutes of the Mobile Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, Held in Tuskaloosa, Alabama, November 23- 28, 1864 (Mobile, 1864). pp. 10- 
11. 

Brydon, "Diocese of Virginia," p. 390; Garnett Ryland, The Baptists of Virginia, 1699 1926 (Rich- 
mond, 1955), p. 297; Christian Observer. March 5. 1863; Minute Book of the Carmel Baptist Church, 
Aug., 1864; Minute Book of the Battle Run Baptist Church. Sept. 13. 1862, Virginia Baptist Historical 
Society; Journal of the Proceedings of the Convention of the Diocese of Florida, Held in Tallahassee, May 



4-8 Maryland Historical Magazine 



occupation of Hardeville, South Carolina, said, "Again the worlc of destroying 
buildings commenced. A large beautiful church was attacked . . . the pulpit and seats 
were torn out, then the siding and blinds ripped off. . . . Many axes were at work ... it 
became a pile of rubbish."'^ In Mississippi the home and library of Episcopal Bishop 
William Green were burned by federal troops after the battle of Jackson." At Holly 
Springs, Mississippi, and at St. Augustine, Florida, the invaders used the Episcopal 
churches for stables. The altars were overturned and used as feed troughs.'* After the 
battle of Atlanta the basement of the Central Presbyterian Church in that city was 
used by United States authorities as a slaughterhouse.'^ 

At Fredericksburg, Virginia, Church Hill, Mississippi, and Helena, Arkansas, 
Northern soldiers played lewd songs on the church organs, danced in the buildings, 
and stole the silver communion services.^" Federal troops confiscated the seats, 
destroyed the pulpit, and "carried off the window sash of the Baptist church in 
Suffolk, Virginia.^' The Oak Grove Methodist Church in Jackson County, Alabama, 
was torn down by federal troops and the materials were used to build a pontoon bridge 
across the Tennessee River. At Corinth, Mississippi, the Christian Church was torn 
down and the brick used to construct "chimneys and ovens in the camps of Federal 
forces. "^^ A Methodist church in Shellmound, Tennessee, was used by Federal 
soldiers as a "shed for horses," and St. Stephen's Lutheran Church in Shenandoah 
County, Virginia, was destroyed and the materials used to construct a signal tower.^' 
Bapti.st and Methodist church buildings at Newbern, North Carolina, and Charleston, 
South Carolina, were used as warehouses for the storage of commissary supplies by 
fedferal military authorities.^* Some church buildings were used by fedefal soSflfers as 

8, TS67 in St. John's Church, with Sermon Preached by the Rev. Dr. J. J. Scotl, M Memory of the Late 
Bishop Rutledge, Including Proceedings in 1863 and 1866 (Tallahassee, 1867), p. 11; Minutes of the 
Thirty-Ninth Annual Session of the yellow River Baptist Association, Held With the Church at Nance's 
Creek, Meki^ County, Georgia, September 26-28, 1863 (Atlanta, 1863), p. 4. 

"'ISteiAen F. Fleharty, Our Regiment. A History of the 102nd. Illinois Volunteers (Chicago, 1865), 
p. 132. 

" Inventory of the Church Archives of Mississippi, Protestant Episcopal Church, Diocese of Mis- 
sissippi (Jackson, 1940), p. 32. 

" Nash K. Burger, "The Diocese of Mississippi and the Confederacy," Historical Magazine of the 
Protestant Episcoii^ Ckmreh, Vol. 9 (M»r€>bt 1940), p. 71; St. Augustine, St. At^ustim Extrntiner, Feb. 
20, 1869. 

" Haskell M. Monroe, Jr., "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America" (un- 
published doctoral dissertation. Rice University, 1961), p. 312. 

'"Burger, "The Diocese of Mississippi," p. 71; Edgar L. Pennington, "The Confederate Episcopal 
Church in 1863," The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, Vol. 52 (Jan., 1951), p. 9; 
William Junius Wade, "The Origins and Establishment of the Presbyterian Church in the United States" 
(unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina, 1959), p. 451. 

" Minute Book ©f the First Bl^Mt ClMuelii Smflt^, Viipitm^ im^t«d item, Vii^inia Baptist Histori- 
cal Society. 

" Churches and Institutions of Learning Destroyed By The United States Military Forces During 
the Civil War, But Not As An Act of Military Necessity, The Materials Having Been Appropriated and 
Used (Washington, 1912>, «4 8. 
pp. 13, 19. 

" List of War Claims Confined Entirely to Claims for use and Occupation or Rent of Church Building, 
College Buildings, and Other Public Buildings by the Military Forces of the United States During the 
War, Coi^led in Some Cases with A Claim for Damages Done to the Building During the Occupancy 



E#«cts of the CivH W«r 



49 



targets for rifle and artillery practice, and it was reported that at least one church 
building was taken over by the federals and tenanted with a group of colored women, 
who were called "wives of United States soldiers. "^^ 

Practically all of the church buildings in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Franklin, Tennessee, 
and Fredericksburg, Virginia, were damaged or destroyed by Unit^ SWrt<^ ««S*ary 
authorities during the war," and numerous churches in other areas were torn down 
and the materials used to construct barracks.^' It is claimed that in Virginia 
t*'enty-six Baptist churches were completely destroyed by federal tWrept aflfd that 
throughout the South, United States personnel destroyed or seriously damaged more 
than sixty Presbyterian church buildings.^' In the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of 
South Carolina ten church buildings were burned and three otJtefS wr«re *%tecft«d,'" 
and eleven parsonages were destroyed by fire.*' In Knoxville, Tennessee, it was 
reported that every Methodist church in the city was either destroyed or damaged 
d«#nf tl*t war.'° In addition to destroying church property, federal fmcm md even 
Confederate authorities converted many church buildings into hospitals for the sick 
and wounded.'' 

I«fltettjofi contributed to serioBS financial problems for the chtarch. As early as 



with A Statement In Each Case Compiled for Convenience of Members of the Senate Committee on 
Claims in Connection With An Examination ■ i H R 191 15 (Washington, 1912), pp. 26, 30. 

" A. Toomer Porter, Led On! Step By Step (New York, 1898), p. 146; Frances Allen Canabiss and 
James Allen Canabiss, "Religion in Mississippi .Since 1860," The Journal of Mississippi History, Vol. 
9 (Oct., 1947), p. 199; .loseph Cross, Camp and Field. Books Third and Fourth (Columbia, 1864), p. 340; 
List of War Claims Including A Few Exceptional Cases of Claims For Churches: Also A List of Other 
Claims to Which Objections Appear, Such as loaches. ,Vo Proof of Loyalty, Insufficient Evidence As To 
Facts, Evidence of Payment and Statutory Bars With A Statement of Each Compiled for Convenience of 
Members of the Senate Committee on Claims in Connection With An Examination of H. R. 191 15 (Wash- 
i^ton, 1912), p. II. 

" List of War Claims Confined Entirely to Claims for Use and Occupation or Rent of Church Build- 
ings, pp. 10, 32, 33, 42, 43. 

"Ibid., pp. 38 54; Churches and Institutions of Learning Destroyed . . . During the Civil War, pp. 
6, 11 13, 15 19. 

" Ryland, Baptist of Virginia, p. 297: Monroe, "Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," p. 
3^11. 

''^Report of the Committee on the Destruction of Churches in the Diocese of South Carolina During 
the Late War. Presented to the Protestant Episcopal Convention, May, 1868 (Charleston, 1868), p. 15. 
Also see Journal of the Sixty Seventh Annual Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, 
St. Pauls Church, Richmond, May 21 22, 1862 (Richmond, 1862), p. 31; J. B. Cain, Methodism in the 
Mississippi Conference, 1846 1870 (Nashville, 1939), p. 359; Ryland, Baptist of Virginia, pp. 297-299; 
Hugh T. Lefler, "Thomas Atkinson, Third Bishop of North CaroftH^" JPMW#rf Jf^tAie o/ the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church, Vol. 17 (Dec, 1948), p. 428. 

" Hunter D. parish, The Circuit RiSir l^mmm, M Baekt .MMi»ry ofS@mhern iietkadism, 1865- 
1900 (Richmond, 1938), p. 29. 

^' J. L. M. Curry, Civil History of the Q mmm ii em »/ the Confederate States With Some Personal 
Reminiscences (Richmond, 1900), p. 174; Eugene Verdery, Jr. and James P. Verdery Papers, James P. 
Verdery to his sister, February 22, 1864, Duke University Library; Minute Book of the Mt. Poney Bap- 
tist Church, December, 1862, Virginia Baptist Historical Society; Minutes of the Hanover Presbytery at 
Salem Church, October 24, 1862, Union Theological Seminary Library, Richmond; Inventory of the 
Church Archives of Tennessee, Tennessee Baptist Convention, Ocoee Baptist Association (Nashville, 
1942), p. 6; Julia J. Yonge, Christ Church Parish, Pensacola, Florida 1827-1927 (n.p., n.d.), p. 21; List of 
War Claims Confined Entirely to Claims for Use and Occupation or Rent of Church Buildings, pp. 10, 
29, 31, 53. 



W& Maryland Historical Magarine 



September, 1861, some congregations were in arrears on ministers' salaries, and in 

1862, many clergymen were receiving the same salary they had received in 1860. Food 
and clothing, however, were four times as expensive in the fall of 1862 as they had 
been two years earlier. The religious newspapers and denominational spokesmen 
urged congregations to increase the salary of their pastor, and some suggested ttatt 
parishioners make periodic visits to their clergyman and to tak« hioi ll^^ as 
flour, corn, pork, salt, fire wood, and clothing.'^ 

The Methodists were more active than others in urging ch^eli^ t® preside for thwr 
jmtors. In Mississippi the Port Gibson Quarterly Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, increased the salaries of its pastors from $1200 in 1862 to 
$4000 in 1864. In December, 1864, the Quarterly Conference Mthe Sarwter Cifcait of 
the Methodist Church in South Carolina voted to provide its pastors with salt, soap, 
tallow, fire wood, and other provisions for the forthcoming year and to pay them 
$4,600 in mon^. fiMft««ie year the Iredell Circuit of the North CtoroJint Methodist 
Conference allowed its preachers provisions which had an aggregate value of $1 1,900 
and which included vinegar, forage, jeans cloth, striped or checked cloth, domestics, 
and leath^.'^ 

The Alabama Diocese of the Protestant 'EpSGopal Church increased the salary of 
Bishop Richard Wilmer from $2500 in l»6l to $3000 in 1863.'' In the summer of 

1863, two Presbyterian clergymen in Richmond, Virginia, were given SMfpteflsewts by 
their congregations. T. V. Moore received $3000 from his parishioners, and Moses D. 
Hoge was given a supply of coal, flour, meat, and twelve thousand dollars. John L. 
Burrows, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Richmond, was given a supplement of 
$13,000 by his congregation in 1864.^^ These three cases were given wide publicity in 
the religious newspapers, and their congregations were described as examples for 
others to emulate. These cases, however, were exceptional ones; most ctergymen 
suffered as victims of inflation, and manv were forced into secular employment. One 
declared that his people had nothing with which to pay him during the last year of the 
war; therefore, he decided "to go into partnership with a lawyer."" 

All denominational newspapers expen^ced a lack of funds during the war. 



" W. Stanely Hoole, ed., "The Diary of Dr. Basil Manly, 1858 1867," The Alabama Review. Vol, 4 
(July, 1951), p. 223; Tuskegee, South Western Baptist, Nov. 20. 1862; Richmond Christian Advocate, 
June 26, 1862; Southern Christian Advocate, Oct. 16, 1862; Christian Index, Nov. 20, 1862; Raleigh, 
Biblical Recorder, March 4, 1863; Richmond, Central Presbyterian. Nov. 26, 1863; Columbia, Confeder- 
ate Baptist, Dec. 23, 1863; Columbia, Southern Presbyterian. Dec. 25, 1862; Minutes of the Nineteenth 
Session of the Aberdeen Baptist Association, Held With The Union Church. Chickasaw County, Mis- 
sissippi, October II 13, lfl62 (Greensboro, 1862), p. 4, 

" Cain, Methodism in Mississippi, p. 390; Willard E. Wight, ed., "Pay The Preacher! Two Letters 
From Louisiana, 1864," Louisiana History, Vol. I (Summer, 1960), pp. 251-252. 

"Walter C. Whitaker, History of The Protestant Episcopal Church in Alabama, 1763-1891 
(Birmingham, 1898), p. 155. 

''Columbia, Southern Lutheran, Aug. 15, 1863; Southern Presbyterian, Oct. 6, 1864; Minutes <rfthe 
First Baptist Church, Richmond, Febr. 20, 1865, First Baptist Church in Richmond, Virginia. 

" Richmond, Central Pmsbfterian, Dec. 18, 1862; Caskey, Caskey's Last Book, p. 48; Also see Rich- 
mond Christian A4vocm, J»e 26, 1862; Wight, "Pay the Preacher," pp. 252, 258. 



Effects of the Civil War 5 1 




St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Richmond, 1865. Library of Congress. 



Inflation, a shortage of materials, and federal occupation forced the suspension of 
one-half of the religious weeklies in the South by the end of 1862 and the occasional 
suspension of all of them at sometime during the war.^' Paper which sold for $10.00 a 
ream in 1861 cost more than $30.00 in 1863, and the costs of printing a 
denominational weekly increased from $42.00 a week in 1861 to $175.50 in 1863.^^ To 
combat inflation and to conserve materials, those papers which continued to publish, 
issued half sheets and increased prices. Typical of a paper struggling to exist was the 
Christian Observer, a Presbyterian weekly published in Richmond, Virginia. On 
January 3, 1861, the price of the paper was $2.50 a year. In August, 1863, the paper 
was cut to half size, and the subscription rate was increased to $5.00 a year. Later on 
May 5, 1864, the price was increased to $8.00, and that fall it was announced that 

"William W. Sweet, The Methodist Episcopal Church and the Civil War (Cincinnati, 1912), p. 129: 
William W. Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention, 1845-1953 (Nashville, 1954), p. 46; B. F. Riley, 
History of the Baptists of Texas (Dallas, 1907), p. 167; Central Presbyterian. May 22, 1862; Richmond 
Christian Advocate, June 26, 1862; South Western Baptist, March 6, 1862. 

^' Sweet, The Methodist Episcopal Church and the Civil War, p. 129; Southern Lutheran, Oct. 31, 
1863; Christian Observer, Sept. 17, 1863. 



yearly subscriptions would be $12.00. Ttie top rate of $20.00 a year was announced on 
January 5, 1865." 

Some denominations suffered a heavy financial loss when their presses were 
confiscated by federal authorities. In February, 1862, federal forces occupied the 
publishing house of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in Nashville, and 
thereafter used it as a United States government printing house. Its equipment was 
practically ruined by the end of the war. The Cumberland Presbyterian Printing 
House in Nashville was also taken over by federal authorities, and it was later 
dismantled and moved to Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. In Suffolk, Virginia, the press 
which published the Christian Sun was confiscated, dismantled, and removed. The 
building and records of the Presbyterian Committee of Publications and the press 
which published the Baptist Religious Herald in Richmond were destroyed by fire in 
April, 1865." 

In many instances the endowments of church colleges and seminaries, since they 
were invested in Confederate securities, were wiped out. The Presbyterians suffered 
a severe property loss when the trustees of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary at 
Columbia, South Carolina, voted to invest over $250,000 of the institution's endow- 
ment in Confederate bonds, Presbyterians in Virginia also invested the endowment 
funds of Hampden-Sydney College and a portion of the endowment of Union Theo- 
logical Seminary in Confederate bonds.*' The Southern Baptist Theological Semi- 
nary at Greenville, South Carolina, was impoverished at the end of the war, since 
its funds had been invested in Confederate bonds. In similar investments two 
other Baptist institutions, Richmond College and Mississippi College, lost endow- 
ments exceeding one hundred thousand dollars each."^ The endowment of the 
Methodist school in Virginia, Randolph-Macon College, and over half of the 
endowment funds of the Protestant Episcopal Seminary at Alexandria, Virginia, were 
also invested in Confederate securities.*^ These examples are illustrative of the fate of 
educational endowments during the war. 

Other aspects of the educational program of the church were affected by tifti war. 
Practically all college level instruction ceased as students and faculty went to war, and 
new colleges which had been planned prior to the outbreak of hostilities, such as the 



" Christian Observer, Jan. 3, 1861, Aug. 12, 1863, May 5. 1864. Nov. 3, 1864. Jan. 5, 1865. 

Alexander, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, p. 85; The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of 
the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (128 vols.: Washington, 1880- 1901), Series I, 
Vol. 52, Part 1, p. 686; Cross, Camp and Field, Books Third and Fourth, p. 340; Minutes of the General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United Stales with an Appendix, 1865 (Augusta, 1865), p. 
400; Christian Observer, April 14, 1864; Religious Herald, June 25, 1863. 

" Minutes of the General Assembly, 1865, p. 365; Christian Index, May 20, 1864; Francis R. Flournoy, 
Benjamin Mosby Smith, 1811 1893 (Richmond, 1947), p. 29; Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the 
Confederate States," p. 207. 

"John A. Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, D. D.. LL. D. (New York, 1893), p. 198; Jesse 
L. Boyd, A Popular History of the Baptists in Mississippi (Jackson, 1930), p. 118. 

"Richard Irby, History of Randolph-Macon College (Richmond, 1882), p. 148; George G. Smith, 
The Life and Times of George Foster Pierce, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South (Sparta, Georgia, 18S8), p. 496; Cornelius Walker, The Life and Correspondence of Rev. William 
Sparrow, D.D. (Philadelphia, 1876), p. 262. 



Effects of the Civil War 



53 




Cathedral of St. John, Charleston. Library of Congress. 

Episcopal .school at Sewanee, Tennessee, were not opened. College students were not 
exempt from conscription law, and as early as May, 1861, many colleges announced 
the suspension of classes.*'' 

The government's policy of refusing to exempt theological students from military 
service elicited protests from ecclesiastical leaders. Episcopal Bishop William Meade 
urged President Jefferson Davis to advocate exemption for students who were 
studying for the ministry, and the facuhies of the Presbyterian seminaries in South 
Carolina and Virginia petitioned the Confederate government to permit theological 
students to continue their studies. James P. Boyce, the president of the Southern 
Baptist Theological Seminary, requested the Secretary of War to use his influence to 
secure changes in the conscription law which would permit theological students to 
pursue their studies."' All such requests were in vain, and theological seminaries were 
forced to suspend classes. 

" B. F. Riley, A History oj the Baptists in the Southern States East of the Mississippi (Philadelphia 
1898), p. 253; South Western Baptist, May 9, 1861; Alexander, History of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, p. 70. 

" Dunbar Rowland, ed., Jefferson Davis Constitutionalist, His Letters, Papers, and Speeches ( 1 0 vols • 
Jackson, 1923), V, p. 159; Flournoy, Benjamin M. Smith, p. 78; Archibald Thomas Robertson, Life and 
Letters of John Albert Broadus (Philadelphia, 1901), p. 94. 



54 Maryland Historical Magazine 



Some denominational colleges remained open during the war but offered prepara- 
tory rather than college instruction. Roanoke College did not close but terminated 
college level classes in 1861. Its war-time student body was composed of youngsters 
whose parents sent them there as a place of relative safety. In his report to the college 
trustees on June 12, 1865, President D. F. Bittle said, "During the war we had no 
regular college classes, most of our students were boys under military age, 
consequently we had no graduates."*" In North Carolina, Davidson, Guilford, and 
Trinity colleges were also open during the war but operated on a level similar to that 
of Roanoke College in Virginia.'"' In 1864 at least two church schools, Howard 
College in Alabama and Mercer University in Georgia, offered free instruction to 
disabled Confederate soldiers. As a result one hundred and twenty-five veterans were 
enrolled at Howard College during the year 1864 1865.'" 

As difficult and uncertain as conditions were during the war, all efforts at higher 
education were not entirely abandoned by the church. One of the most valiant efforts 
to continue was made by the Protestant Episcopal Church. When the Episcopal 
Seminary at Alexandria, Virginia, was occupied by federal authorities in May, 1861, 
the board of trustees resolved to continue instruction at Staunton, Virginia. Two 
professors, William Sparrow and Joseph Packard, constituted the faculty, while the 
class room was the vestry room of the Staunton church. From October, 1861, to May, 
1862, the two professors and five students were in Staunton. In May, 1862, Packard 
returned to his home in Fauquier County, and Sparrow and the students moved to the 
estate of John T. Clark in Halifax County, Virginia. Later that year, when the fighting 
in the Valley had subsided and the military threat to Staunton had lessened. Sparrow 
and the students returned to that town. Sparrow remained there utitil the end of the 
war, at times having only one student.*' 

The buildings of some colleges and seminaries were converted into hospitals for the 
sick and wounded soldiers of both armies. The buildings of the Protestant Episcopal 
Seminary were used as a hospital by the United States government from the summer 
of 1861 until the end of the war. The buildings of Richmond College served as hospital 
facilities for Confederate troops from Louisiana. At one time or another during the 
war the buildings of Emory University at Oxford, Georgia, Mount Lebanon 
University at Mount Lebanon, Louisiana, and Howard College in Alabama were used 
k$ the Confederate forces as hospitals.*" 



"William E. Eisenberg, The First Hundred Years. Roanoke College 1842-1942 (Strasburg, 1942), 
pp. 92, 98, 1 12. 

"Cornelia R. Shaw, Davidson College (New York, 1923), p. 105; Dorothy L. Gilbert, Guilford, A 
Quaker College (Greensboro, 1937), p. 106; Nora C. Chaffin, Trinity College, 1839-1892: The Beginning 
of Duke University (Durham, 1950), pp. 219-251; Monroe. "Presbyterian Church in the Confederate 
States," p. 151. 

'"Minutes of the Forty-Third Annual Session of the Alabama Baptist State Convention. Held at 
Marion, November 10-14, 1865. With an Abstract of the Minutes of the Convention Held in Montgomery, 
November 11-14, (Atlanta, 1866), p. 3; Confederate Baptist, May 1 1, 1864. 

" Walker, Life of Sparrow, p. 256; Joseph Packard, Recollections «^ 4 £^ f^ffAn^on, 

1902), p. 275. 

*° Walker, Life of Sparrow, p. 26 1 ; Louisiana Soldiers' Relief Association, A nd Hospital in the City of 
Richmond, Virginia. Established August 21-23, 1861 (Richmond, 1862), p. 5; Henry M. Bullock, A His- 



fffeets of the Cwt War 



55 



The drafting of ministerial students and the entrance of numerous clergymen into 
the army helped to create a shortage of clergymen in Southern Protestantism. 
Ministers who remained with their congregations were urged by denominational 
leaders to supply vacant churches and to visit the parishioners of brother clergymen 
who were absent. In some instances elders and deacons were requested to preach and 
minister to congregations without a pastor.^' The scarcity of clergymen may be seen 
by noting the number of ministers admitted to trial or ordained in local areas during 
the war. In 1862 the Arkansas Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
had no admissions for trial. The Presbytery of Charleston, South Carolina, ordained 
only one man during the four war years. In 1864 the Southern Lutheran declared that 
there were vacant charges in every synod and area of the South and that the need for 
home missionaries was as great as the need for army missionaries." 

In the 1840's the two largest denominations in the South — the Methodists and the 
Baptists — severed connection with their co-religionists in the North and formed 
sectional organizations. During the war Southern Presbyterians, Lutherans, and 
Episcopalians split from their Northern brethren and formed separate organizations. 
When the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church met in Philadelphia on May 
16, 1861, the war had begun and only sixteen Southern delegates attended; no one was 
present from North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, or Arkansas. The 
Assembly adopted a resolution, introduced by Gardiner Spring of New York, which 
pledged allegiance and loyalty to the United States government and to the 
Constitution. This action prompted all of the Southern presbyteries to renounce their 
connection with the General Assembly and to form a separate Southern assembly. At 
a meeting of Presbyterian delegates in Augusta, Georgia, on December 4, 1861, there 
Hfts created the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate 
States of America, and Benjamin Morgan Palmer was elected moderator." 

In November, 1861, a General Convention of Episcopal bishops and lay leaders 
^semWed in Columbia, South Carolina, and adopted a constitution for the 

tory of Emory University (Nashville, 1936), p. 149; Minutes of the Sixteenth Annual Session of the Louisi- 
ana Baptist State Convention, Held With Evergreen Church, DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, July 1-4, 1864 
(Mount Lebanon, 1864), p. 15; Also see George V, Irons, "Howard Ccdt^fe as a Confederate Military 
Hospital," The Alabama Review, Vol. 9 (Jan., 1956), p. 22. 

"Nashville, Tennessee Baptist, July 13, 1861; Minutes of the Memphis Synod, College Hill, Missis- 
sippi, Oct. 25, 1862, Historical Foundation of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches; B. F. Riley, A 
Memorial History of the Baptists of Alabama. Being an Account of the Struggles and Achievements of the 
Denomination From 1808 to 1923 (Philadelphia, 1923), p. 147; Walter L. Fleming, Civil War and Recon- 
struction in Alabama (New York, 1905), p. 224; Horace Jewell, History of Methodism in Arkansas (Little 
Rock, 1892), p. 171; Minutes of the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Chickasaw Baptist Association, 
Held with the Mt. Pleasant Church, Pontotoc County, Mississippi, September 16 18, 1864 (Meridian, 
1865), p. 3; Southern Presbyterian, October 6, 1864; Minute Book of the Coan Baptist Church, March, 
1863, Virginia Baptist Historical Society. 

'^Jewell, History of Methodism In Arkansas, p. 171; Minutes of the General Assembly, 1865, p. 366; 
Southern Lutheran, ian. 16, 1864. 

''T. Watson Street, The Story of Southern Presbyterians (Richmond, 1960), pp. 56-59; Thomas C. 
Johnson, The Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan Palmer (Richmond, 1906), p. 242; Thomas C. John- 
son, History of the Southern Presbyterian Church (New York, 1911), p. 325ff; Ernest Trice Thompson, 
Presbyterians In the South, 1607 1861 (Richmond, 1963), pp. 564 567, 571; Benjamm M. Palmer, The 
Life and Letters of James Henley Thornwell (Richmond, 1875), p. 502. 



56 Maryland Historical Magazine 




Richmond, 1865. Library of Congress. 



Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America. '^^ During the war 
seven Lutheran synods in the South severed relations with the General Synod of this 
church, and in 1863 formed the General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
the Confederate States of America.'^' In no instance did the forming of separate 
denominational organizations involve any change in polity and doctrinal statement by 
Southerners. 

The exigencies of war stimulated some denominational cooperation and helped to 
achieve two denominational mergers. From the fall and winter of 1861 62, the 
possibilities and problems associated with church union were discussed by the various 
newspapers and synodical meetings of the different Presbyterian groups in the South; 
most of the comment was favorable to union. In the autumn of 1863, the 
Independent Presbyterian Church, which was represented by thirteen congregations, 
merged with the Bethel Presbytery of the Synod of South Carolina and became a part 



°* Edward McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America, During the Great Re- 
bellion (Washington, 1876), p. 515. 

"Charles W. Heathcote, The Lutheran Church and The Civil War (New York, 1919), pp. 93-95. A 
century later the Presbyterians in America are still divided into separate organizations. The Episcopalian 
split ended in 1865, and the Lutherans were reunited in 1918. 

" Monroe, "Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," pp. 142- 143, 211. 



lff«cts of tim m^^m 57 



of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America. In 1863 the General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America, and the 
United Synod of the new school Presbyterian Church appointed commissioners to 
formulate a plan of merger. Representatives from both groups met in Lynchburg, 
Virginia, on July 24, 1863, and agreed on a plan. After minor alterations the plan was 
approved by the General Assembly and the meeting of the United Synod. In 1864 the 
twelve thousand United Synod Presbyterians became a part of the Presbyterian 
Church in the Confederate States of America.'' • . 

It appears to have been a common practice during the war for congregations to 
permit clergymen of other denominations to speak from their pulpit and in time of 
crisis to share their church building with others. When the Zoar Baptist Church in 
Virginia was destroyed in 1864, the congregation was given permission to meet, on 
alternate Sundays, in the Presybterian and Episcopal churches in the vicinity. When 
the Baptist Church at Carter's Run, Virginia, was demolished, the Methodists 
permitted the members to use their building; and in Fluvanna County, Virginia, the 
Episcopalians were permitted to use the Baptist church for their worship services." 
During the war Baptist preachers often conducted worship services in churches of 
other denominations, and non-Baptist clergymen were granted permission to preach 
in Baptist churches.*" 

Ecclesiastical meetings were restricted, and organizational bonds were weakened 
during the war. In some areas denominational meetings were suspended entirely; in 
others they met infrequently. The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, which was scheduled to meet at New Orleans in the spring, of 1862, 
was postponed and did not meet until 1866. The Texas Conference of this Church was 
without the supervision of a bishop for five years, and Methodist churches in 
Arkansas were without the services of a bishop for four years. Bishop George F. 
Pierce expressed regret that he was separated from his conferences by the war; and in 
Virginia, Bishop John Early explained that it would be impossible for the Western 
Virginia Conference to meet in 1863. He urged ministers in the Conference to care for 
the churches "as best they could."*' 

Numerous presbyteries and synods were prevented from meeting during the war. 
The Synod of Nashville, which embraced middle and east Tennessee and north 
Alabama, did not meet in 1862, 1863, and 1864; the Texas Synod did not meet in 
1863, since a quorum was not present, and the 1864 meeting was cancelled. Most 



" Ibid., pp. 5, 244 269. 

" Minute Book of the Zoar Baptist Church, p. 88, Virginia Baptist Historical Society. 
"Minutes of the Shiloh Baptist Association, Held at Alum Spring Church, August 29 -30, 1865 
(cover to publication missing), p. 5; Minute Booli of the Fluvanna Baptist Church, first Sunday in April, 
1865, Virginia Baptist Historical Society. 

^'Religious Herald, Aug. 3, 1863; Central Presbyterian. March 5. 1863; Cecil Johnson, ed.. Auto- 
biographical Notes by John Lipscomb Johnson (Boulder, Colorado, 1958), pp. 139, 153. 

Smith, Life of Pierce, pp. 491, 444, 447; Jewell, History of Methodism in Arkansas, p. 189; John 
William Burke, Autobiography: Chapters From the Life of A fpeacher (Mbcoh, 188+), p. M)9; Richmond 
Christian Advocate, Aug. 27, 1863. 



58 Nt t tyH wi a - -mm mimllK Mm ^i m 



presbyteries in Mississippi did not meet in 1863 and 1864, and the Presbytery of 
Knoxville did not meet after 1863.°^ The Protestant Episcopal Church in Tennessee 
held no diocesan conventions during the war, the Diocese of Mississippi met 
infrequently, and the Diocese of Arkansas did not meet after 1863." 

Baptist associations met irregularly in a number of areas, and the Southern Baptist 
Convention which was scheduled to meet in the spring of 1865 was postponed until the 
following year. The Mississippi Baptists held only one state convention during the 
war, and that was in 1861. In Arkansas the Baptist State Association was suspended 
from 1861 to 1867. James B. Taylor attended the meeting of the Baptist General 
Association of Virginia on May 30, 1863, and remarked that whereas this meeting 
used to consist of a gathering of several hundred and lasted for three or foufdf^, 
there were only thirty-five persons present and they met for only a few hours. The 
following fall he attended the meeting of the Portsmouth Association. This 
organization embraced forty-six churches, but only eleven were represented.** The 
suspension of denominational meetings together with the absence of episcopal 
visitation and supervision hampered the program of the church. All that could be 
expected in some areas was to preserve a semblance of ecclesiastical order. 

The emergencies of war brought about a temporary change in the manner of 
membership acceptance into some congregations. As federal forces moved into an 
area, a number of inhabitants fled to interior regions of the Confederacy. Some of 
these were church members. They were unable to secure letters from their church 
clerk, but were granted membership in other churches of their denomination without 
being required to present letters. Some refugees were asked to relate their religious 
experience before the congregation; others simply acknowledged their faith as a 
member of the denomination with which they wished to affiliate. Soldiers who were 
converted and baptized in camp revivals were admitted to church membership upon 
the presentation of a statement from their chaplain affirming that they had professed 
faith, been baptized, and desired membership with a specific denomination or 
congregation.'* 



"^Minutes of the Synod of Mississippi, 1861 1867 (Jackson, 1880), pp. 34, 49; Minutes of the Texas 
Synod, 1863, 1864; Minutes of the Synod of Nashville, Historical Foundation of the Presbyterian and 
Reformed Churches; Minutes of the Session of the Piedmont Presbyterian Church, Union Theological 
Seminary Library, Richmond; Christian Observer, Sept. 29, 1864; Wade, "The Origins. . .of the Presby- 
terian Church in the United States," p. 452. 

Pennington, "Confederate Episcopal Church in 1863," p. 10; Burger, "Diocese of Mississippi," p. 
58; Henry T. Shanks, "Documents Relating to the Diocese of Arkansas, 1861 1865, and Bishop Henry C. 
Lay Papers," Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Vol. 8 (March, 1939), p. 78. 

" Boyd, Baptists in Mississippi, p. 1 1 1 ; J. S. Rogers, History of Arkansas Baptists (Little Rock, 1948), 
p. 502; Taylor, Life of Taylor, pp. 262. 264. 

Minute Books of the following Baptist Churches; First Baptist, Richmond, Virginia, March 11, 
1862; Leigh Street, April 27, 1863; Hunting Creek, September, 1863; St. Stephen's, October 8, 1865; 
Bruington, September 6, 1863: Rappahannock Baptist Church, October. 1863, Virginia Baptist Historical 
Society; Minutes of the Synod of South Carolina at its Sessions in 1862 and 1863 (Camden, 1864), p. 54; 
Session Minutes of the United Presbyterian Church, Richmond, July 1, 1864; Minutes of the Session of 
the Mt. Uniofi Presbyteriai! Church, S^i^iteiS^'lliiMWiNI Theological Seminary Library, Rich- 
mond. 



Effects of the Civil War 



59 




Ruins of the Circular Church, Charleston. Library of Congress. 



The social instability of a people at war, the absence of clergymen, the scattered 
nature of many congregations, the destruction wrought by the invaders, and a 
preoccupation with matters of war had a debilitating influence upon the church. A 
popular notion that people turn to the church in time of war was not true of the South. 
The churches experienced no revival enthusiasm similar to that which occurred in the 
camps. A Methodist observer noted that the excitement of war "took the people's 
minds off religion," and another historian claimed that the cause of religion declined 
in the passions and strife of war, and demoralization mounted."" Alfred Drake, clerk 
of the Elon Baptist Church in Virginia, wrote, "The war seems ... to have 
demoralized to a great degree all classes of society."" Ecclesiastical meetings 



"Macum Phelan, A History of Early Methodism in Texas. 1817 1866 (Nashville, 1924), p. 467; 
Minute Book of the York Circuit, Virginia Conference, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, October 30, 
1861, Randolph-Macon College Library, Ashland, Virginia; A. H. Newman, ed., A Century of Baptist 
Achievement (Philadelphia, 1901), p. 395; Minute Book of the Second Baptist Church, Petersburg, Vir- 
ginia, Oct. 2, 1861; Minutes of the Rappahannock Baptist Association. 1863, Virginia Baptist Historical 
Society; Minutes of the Seventy-Ninih Annual Session of the Middle District Baptist Association. Held 
With Mt. Moriah Church. Powhatan County. Virginia. July 29 30. 1862 (Richmond, 1862), p. 10. 

" Minute Book of the Elon Baptist Church, Aug. 3, 1861, Jan. 1862; also see Minute Book of the 
Second Baptist Church, Petersburg, Virginia, Oct. 2, 1861, Virginia Baptist Historical Society. 



§0 M arylavM 4itelerMMMHifpeimt 



reported that there was a lack of interest in religion, that the people were concerned 
with the "vanities of this world," and "that a state of coldness and indifference existed 
in some churches."^' 

Religious newspapers blamed the war for the demoralization of the churches and 
for lukewarmness in religion. The Central Presbyterian declared that preoccupation 
with the war had "brought about a neglect of interest in souls." An Episcopal editor 
asserted that a general deterioration of public morals was visible everywhere, that the 
restraints of a Christianized public opinion had been withdrawn, and that men 
violated the Sabbath as if there were no commandment against such and practiced 
ethics which no Christian could sanction.'' 

In this environment all of the major denominations experienced a decline in 
membership. It has been estimated that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, lost 
over one-third of its membership during the war. In the same period the membership 
of Presbyterian churches in North Carolina decreased by more than two thousand; the 
loss for this church was equally as great in other areas. The Baptists also suffered 
membership losses; in Georgia the membership and property losses of this denomina- 
tion were so great that some associations ceased to exist.'" 

In many areas of the South the ministry of the Church was disrupted by the 
intimidation of clergymen by federal authorities. When any region came under federal 
control, it was customary for United States authorities to direct the local inhabitants 
to subscribe to an oath of allegiance to the United States government. It is claimed 
that federal authorities were especially diligent in enforcing this directive upon 
clergymen because they were considered to be Confederate "recruiters" aii^f^^orak 
boosters," and it was thought that they exercised great influence and control over the 
populace." Many ministers complied with the military order and continued to occupy 
their pulpits. However, from November 30, 1863, to March 23, 1864, the Secretary of 
War of the United States, Edwin B. Stanton, issued orders to federal commanders in 
the South to place all houses of worship in their areas "at the disposal" of bishops and 

" Minutes of the Rappahannock Association, July, 1863, Virginia Baptist fli^oi-fatt Sociiety. Minutes 
of the Middle District Association, 1862, p. 10. 

"Christian Index, Oct. 21, 1862, March 18, 1864; Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presby- 
terian Church in the Confederate States of America With an Appendix, 1864 (Columbia, 1864), p. 292; 
Minutes of the General Assembly, 1865, p. 380; Central Presbyterian, Aug. 21, 1862: Journal of rite Sec- 
ond Annual Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Texas, Held in Chrim.-'&Htre^, 
Houston, June 9-11, 1864 (Houston, 1864), p. 12; Church Intelligencer, Jan. 1 1, 1865. 

'"John F. Hurst, The History of Methodism (7 vols.: New York, 1902), VI, p. 1285: Fari^, 7^ 
Circuit Rider Dismounts, p. 30; Memorials of Methodism in Macon, Georgia (Macon, n.d.), p. 33; Rich- 
mond Chrislian Advocate, Jan. 12, 1865; Minutes of Guilford Circuit, North Carolina Quarterly Confer- 
ence, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, Feb. 11, 1865; Minutes of the Lincolnton Circuit, Quarterly 
Conference, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, of North Carolina, Nov. 1, 1862, Duke University Li- 
brary; Craig, Presbyterian Church in North Carolina, p. 34; James Stacy, A History of the Presbyterian 
Church in Georgia (Atlanta, 1912), p. 182; H. M. White, ed.. Rev. William S. While, D. D. and His 
. Tmnes.An Autobiography (Richmond, 1891), p. 175; History of the Baptists in Georgia, p. 220. 

" Monroe, "Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," p. 315; William W. Sweet, Methodism 
in Ameriem Mwiimy iMm Ywfe If 33)* ipt JI®^ 



«ii«cts of the CivH War 



61 



missionary agents of the various Northern churches." President Lincoln was not 
sympathetic with this policy of the War Department. He did not believe that the 
government should try to "run the churches" and consequently, the directives of 
Stanton were only partially enforced. Several months prior to his death Lincoln, by 
personal order to military authorities, began restoring church property to 
Southerners. 

It appears that federal authorities had no firm and fixed policy governing the 
treatment of Southern clergymen. James O. Stedman, pastor of the First Presbyterian 
Church in Memphis, never took the oath, but he was permitted to preach and minister 
to his congregation when that city was within federal lines. Joseph Packard spent most 
of the war at his home in Fauquier County, Virginia; he was permitted to perform his 
ministerial duties unmolested and to visit Richmond and Washington. In the fall of 
1864, Episcopal Bishop Henry C. Lay was granted permission by federal command- 
ers, William T. Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant, to pass through military lines to visit 
and minister to parishioners. Episcopal Bishop Henry F, Green was permitted to cross 
federal lines to visit a sister in La Grange, Tennessee, and to visit parishioners in 
Vicksburg and elsewhere in his diocese at the time the area was under federal 
jurisdiction.'" Howard Henderson, a Methodist clergyman, was given permission to 
visit and preach in Memphis and Vicksburg at a time when both cities were occupied 
by federal troops. In 1863 it was reported that in one Lutheran synod twenty-six 
ministers and churches of this denomination were within federal lines; however, it was 
noted that all were in a "prosperous condition." In 1864 the Tennessee Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, met at City Road Chapel a few miles north 
of Nashville. Although only fourteen ministers were present, they were all Southern- 
ers; they were not molested, and they did not repeal the secession resolutions which 
the Conference had adopted two years earlier.'" 

It seems that the ministers who were forced to take the oath of loyalty to the United 
States government or who were removed from their churches were those whose 
attitude was sullen or hostile, or they were men who persisted in "political preaching" 
and were uncooperative with the federal commanders. William H. Mitchell, pastor of 
the Presbyterian Church in Florence, Alabama, prayed for the success of Confederate 
arms'^te? some federal soldiers were attending iis&^lipj Snd he was arrested aHd 

McPherson, Political History of the United States, pp. 521 -522. 

" Monroe, "Presbyterian Church in the Confederate Slates." p. 320; Ralph E. Morrow, Northern 
Methodism and Reconstruction (East Lansing, 1956), pp. 37 39. This policy was continued by President 
Andrew Johnson and by the spring of 1866 virtually all '$«titii«'ii <^feb popwty which has been seized 
WAS returned to its original holders. 

'* Wade, "The Origins ... of the Presbyterian Church in the United States," p. 273; Packard, Re- 
collections, p. 283: Henry C. Lay, "Sherman in Georgia," The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 149 (Jan., 1932), 
p. 166; Henry C. Lay, "Grant Before Appomattox," The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 149 (March, 1932), pp. 
337, 340; Burger, "Diocese of Mississippi," p. 66. 

" Christian Advocate. June 9, 1892; Minutes of the Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Sessions of the 
Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Western Virginia and Adjacent Parts [1863. 1864] (Lynchburg, 1864), 
p. 8; Richmond Christian Advocate, Aug. 18, 1864. 



62 Maryland Historical Magazine 




Headquarters, United States Christian Commission, Richmond, 1865. Library of Congress. 



imprisoned for six months. When Andrew Johnson was the military governor of 
Tennessee, he arrested and imprisoned for a short time three Nashville ministers 
because they prayed for the success of Confederate arms and refused to pray for the 
government of the United States. When New Orleans was occupied by federal forces, 
three Episcopal clergymen were arrested and deported to New York City because they 
refused to pray for the President of the United States; a Presbyterian minister in New 
Orleans was refused permission to occupy his pulpit and was ordered to leave the 
city.'* 

When Knoxville, Tennessee, was occupied by Northern troops in the fall of 1863, a 
number of Confederate sympathizers were deported to the cotton states, and among 
them were three ministers. A few ministers in east Tennessee were arrested and sent to 



'"Wade, "The Origins... of the Presbyterian Church in the United States," p. 277; Religious Her- 
ald. July 31, 1862; Minutes of the Memphis Synod, College Hill, Mississippi, October 25, 1862, Historical 
Foundation of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches; Minutes of the Forty-Second Anniversary of the 
State Convention of the Baptist Denomination in South Carolina, Greenville. July 25-28, 1862 (Columbia, 
1862), p. 144; Joseph Cross, Camp and Field. Book Second (Macon, 1864), p. 14; Christian Observer, 
Nov. 6, 1862; Kate Mason Rowland and Mrs. Morris L. Croxall, eds.. The Journal of Julia LeGrand, 
New Orleans 1862-1863 (Richmond, 191 1), p. 120; Pennington, "Confederate Episcopal Church in 1863," 
p. 13; too Years Canal Street Presbyterian Church, JS'ew Orleans, Louisiana, 1847-1947 (n.p., 1947), 
pp. 12-13. 



SMilt of the Civil War 



63 



the North as prisoners of war; and in Liberty and Marietta, Georgia, Leesburg, 
Alexandria, Norfolk, and Portsmouth, Virginia clergymen were arrested and 
imprisoned by federal authorities, Usually this action was prompted by the 
clergyman's continued prayers for Confederate forces or by his refusal to pray for 
President Lincoln." 

There is evidence of federal intimidation of some clergymen in many areas of the 
South; however, "most of the clergymen who fell before the might of Federal 
authorities were released soon after their arrest and were permitted e^Wtinue 
preaching."" Perhaps the case of William F. Broaddus might illustrate the treatment 
of a Confederate clergyman by federal authorities. Broaddus, who was pastor of the 
Baptist church in Fredericksburg, Virginia, was arrested by federal agents at hisl>ome 
on July 29, 1862, and sent to Washington, where he was imprisoned for two months. 
During this time he was permitted to have visitors, to read his Bible and newspapers, 
and to receive mail. He was treated courteously by the officers, and on August 29, was 
paroled and sent to Richmond as an emissary to secure the release of several 
imprisoned Union men. The mission was a success, and by the end of September, 
Broaddus had been released and was back in Fredericksburg performing his 
ministerial duties.'^ 

Undoubtedly federal authorities would have been pleased to have captured such 
zealous and "fire-eating" clergymen as Benjamin M. Palmer, James H. Thomwell, 
and Stephen Elliott. But the most passionate members of the clergy escaped federal 
agents and were never caught. Those clergymen who were subjected to indignities 
were the quieter, less zealous men, who did not flee from the enemy but remained to 
care for their parishioners and to suffer with them. It appears that those Southern 
clergymen who were arrested and imprisoned were exceptions to the treatment 
accorded most ministers. The vast majority of Southern clergymen were not molested 
and were permitted to continue their ministerial duties. Nevertheless, the uncertain- 
ties which the Church encountered with military authorities and the intimidation 
which was actual or potential impeded denominational programs and helped to 
disrupt the function of the Church. As a result of the war all of the denominations 
faced a major rebuilding task in the spring of 1865. 

"James B. Campbell, "East Tennessee During the Federal Occupation, 1863-1865," Tke Etm Ttn- 
nessee Historical Society's Publications, Vol. 19 (1947), p. 69; William B. Hesseltitie. ed.i Bf. X ©. ff. 
Ramsey, Autobiography and Letters (Nashville, 1954), p. 165; Confederate Baptist, Dec. 7, 1864; Walter 
L. Fleming, "The Churches of Alabama During the Civil War and Reconstruction," The Gulf States 
Historical Magazine, Vol. 1 (July, 1902), p. 110; Church Intelligencer, Oct. 19, 1864; Southern Presby- 
terian, Jan. 12, 1865; Offiical Records, Series 1, Vol. 17, Part 2, p. 731; Christian Observer, April 10, 
1862; Oliver P. Temple, East Tennessee and The Civil War (Cincinnati, 1899), p. 410; Cross, Camp and 
Field, Books Third and Fourth, pp. 33, 339; Christian Index, March 18, 1862; Christian Observer, Aug. 
2», 1863. 

"Henry C. Lay Papers, undated miscellaneous items. University of North Carolina Library, Chapel 
Hill, North Carolina; Whitaker, Episcopal Church in Alabama, p. 164; Southern Christian Advocate, 
Sept. 22, 1864; Luther F. Addington, The Story of Wise County (n.p., 1956), p. 101; Minute Book of the 
Ketocton Baptist Church, Sept. 3, 1864; April 1, 1865, Virginia Baptist Historical Society; Monroe, "The 
Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," p. 318. 

" Dtecy «f WMftt« R fc*B*»S(jip. 6, 8, 9, 24, 33-35, 37, 45, Virginia Baptist Historical Society; 
WtBtSWS t. ftlrtiBr. 1%e Itfe of/, f. Jeter (Baltimore, 1887), p. 268. 



Politics, Intrigue, and the 
Presidency: James McHenry 
to Bishop John Carroll, 




John B. Boles* 



X HE REVOLUTION OF 1800" was how Jefferson retrospectively referred to the 
first spectacular political contest in the young nation, and his political opponents in 
1800 anticipated his election in just such terms. Even though later historians have 
shown that Jefferson's election was not revolutionary in the French sense, they have 
generally agreed that it was a significant turning point in American history. For the 
first time control of both the executive and legislative branches of the government 
was transferred from one powerful coalition to another. It was the first genuine party 
contest for political power, and the Jeffersonians wrestled the reins of government 
away from the Federalists without bloodshed. For a generation that had lived 
through both the American and French revolutions, the successful transfer of polit- 
ical leadership without resort to arms was remarkable evidence of the uniqueness of 
the American experiment. 

Yet despite this emphasis on gentle change, the election of 1800 was probably the 
most bitterly contested in American history. Jefferson was maliciously attacked as an 
atheist and Jacobin radical intent on destroying the fundamental structure of Amer- 
ican government. Less familiar to the general reader of this Magazine was the equally 
acrimonous attack against John Adams by critics within his own party. They re- 
sorted to political intrigue of the basest sort in their attempt to swing the election to 
Charles C. Pinckney, whom they considered more malleable to their own beliefs. 
Failing that, they tried to manipulate the electoral vote in the House of Representa- 
tives in such a fashion as to name Aaron Burr, not Jefferson, the third president. In 
neither attempt were the "High Federalists" successful, and Jefferson's victory ulti- 
mately destroyed their party. James McHenry, an amiable Marylander, played a 
tangential but revealing role in these activities, and the letter from him to Bishop 
John Carroll, in the Archives of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, first published below 
after an introduction, sheds some light on the extent of his participation.' 

* The author wishes to express appreciation to his wife, Nancy G. Boles, Professor Joseph W. Cox, Mr. 
and Mrs. P. W. Filby, and the Reverend John J. Tierney for their helpful suggestions. 

' Tlie ^5SM!I^J^n,44 ^'^''"^y brought this letter to n^^ioQ,, ai)d .suggested that it be printed, 
-l |yiil^W W <^ ill B!(iW>9n @w, in this Magazine. 



64 



Piift^itliiiiltlt. mm&'i^m^tMmd&ncy 65 

The incumbent Federalists were clearly in political trouble when the election year 
began. ^ Their popularity had peaked with the indignant American reaction to the 
XYZ affair, when the French had rebuffed three American diplomats. The pro- 
French Jeffersonian Republicans, or Antifederalists as Hamilton and his friends 
still called them, were embarrassed by the French action. But the Federalists soon 
frittered away their popularity. The repressive Alien and Sedition Acts irritated 
many, and Jefferson and his followers used the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions 
to solidify the opposition and cement it behind the Republican cause. The Federalists 
expanded the army and navy in expectation of an imminent French war (and, as they 
hoped, an opportunity to squelch for good their domestic rivals), and the resultant 
taxes were very unpopular. In addition, there were the normal political liabilities 
engendered by a party in power for three terms. To make matters even less hopeful 
for the Federalists, the Jeffersonians had been developing their state organizations 
for several years and were united in support for the head of their party. 

The Federalists had still other problems. Alexander Hamilton had long been the 
de facto leader of the party, and as long as Washington was alive — he was, Hamilton 
once stated, "an aegis very necessary to me" — Hamilton was able to use the ex- 
President's prestige to hold the Federalist factions together, John Adams, a stub- 
bornly independent man, had always chafed under this mantle of deference. Out of 
respect for Washington, and in an attempt to avoid interparty conflict, Adams had 
continued several of Washington's cabinet members in office; they, of course, owed 
their loyalty to Washington and took their orders from Hamilton. All Federalists 
had basked in unaccustomed popularity after the XYZ uproar, but as war loomed 
ominously closer, Adams courageously broke with the more partisan Federalists and, 
valuing peace above party, decided in February 1799 to send a peace mission to 
France. The Hamilton Federalists feared such a move would jeopardize relations 
with England, would cause their war-crisis appeal to evaporate, and would lead to a 
diminution of the army which they controlled. The Hamiltonians also thought 
Adams's peace policy was an unprincipled and demagogic attempt to court the sup- 
port of the Jeffersonians, selling out principle for partisan gain. Adams moreover 
made this diplimatic move without consulting either Hamilton or the Washington 
appointees in the cabinet, infuriating the Hamiltonians no end. Then in December 
Washington died. Hawiltoa k»«w his main prop was gone, and Adams saw the 

' A great deal has been written on this eteeti^ «Mi Its background. See William Nisbet Chambers, 
Political Parties in a New Nation: The American Experience, 1776-1809 (New York, 1963), chap. 8; Noble 
E. Cunningham, The Jeffersonian Republicans.- The Formation of Party Organization, 1789-1801 (Chapel 
Hill, 1957), chaps. 7 9; Charles A. ScsiTd, Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy {Uev/ Yovk, 1915), 
chap. 13; Stephen G. Kurtz, The Presidency of John Adams: The Collapse of Federalism, 1795- 1800 
(Philadelphia, 1957), chaps. 16 17; John C. Miller, Alexander Hamilton & the Growth of the New Nation 
(New York, 1959), chap. 33; Dumas Malone, Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty (Boston, 1962), chaps. 
27, 29-30; Joseph W. Cox, Champion of Southern Federalism. Robert Goodloe Harper of South Carolina 
(Port Washington, N. Y., 1972), chap. 10; and for a good summary. Noble E. Cunningham, "Election of 
1800," in The Coming of Power: Critical Presidential Elections in American History, ed. Arthur M. 
Schlesinger, Jr. (New York, 1972), pp. .13 66. The best general discussion for Maryland is Edward G. 
Roddy, "Maryland and the Presidential Election of 1800," Md. Hist. Mag., 56 (Sept. 1961), pp. 244-268. 
None of these aceoums have eqi^M|N(<iW'iMiflf4lMes McHenry. 



66 Maryland Historical Magazine 




James McHenry. By St. Memin. Maryland Historical Society. 



chance to become his own man in the Presidency. Ugly schism appeared among the 
Federalists; the tense election year would see the party split apart. 

The memory of Adams's close victory over Jefferson in the electoral college vote 
of 1796 set the stage for the campaign intrigue of 1800. Adams had won by seventy- 
one to sixty-eight, and he did so by winning every vote in Delaware, New Jersey, New 
York, and the five New England states. He won a seven to four split in Maryland 
and gained one vote in both Virginia and North Carolina. The key to an easy Federal- 
ist victory again was the twelve electoral votes of New York. In that state, as in ten 
others, the presidential electors were named by the state legislature. Obviously who- 
ever controlled the legislature could determine a state's vote for president. Since the 
congressional elections were held throughout 1800, the presidential campaign in ef- 
fect extended for many months. As New York's election was relatively early (the 
polls were open April 29-May 1), the outcome in that pivotal state could very easily 
influence the ensuing state polls. After a bruising political battle, with Aaron Burr 
indefatigably organizing and cajoling his allies, and Hamilton doing the same with 
his, the Republican forces of Burr carried the entire ticket in New York City. Hence 
their control of the new state legislature was assured. For Hamilton this was an es- 
pecially heavy blow, since not only was New York a kingpin in the election, but it was 



Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 



67 




Thomas Jefferson. Maryland Historical Socielv. 



his home and the base of his political operations. And now the opposition had won! 
Such an outcome moved Hamilton to desperate maneuvers. 

Hamilton quickly wrote a long letter to John Jay, Governor of New York, sug- 
gesting a way to retrieve at least part of the Empire State's electoral votes for the 
Federalists.' Hamilton proposed that Jay call a special emergency session of the 
Federalist controlled legislature before the new congressmen met and constituted 
the new Republican legislature. This special session could quickly change the elec- 
tion rules, taking selection of presidential electors out of the hands of the legislature 
and requiring them to be chosen by the people in election districts. In this manner 
the Federalists, who did have a majority in some districts, would prevent all twelve 
electoral votes from going to Jefferson. Certainly this was a shady attempt to under- 
mine the established form of government for party ends; certainly it was an effort to 
refute the mandate of the congressional election; but for Hamilton the stakes were 
supremely high. To risk losing New York was to risk the Federalist achievement in 
government. 

Given the stakes, Hamilton argued to Jay, "it will not do to be over-scrupulous. // 
is easy to sacrifice the substantial interests of society by a strict adherence to ordi- 
nary rules.'' He was not, he cautiously emphasized, suggesting anything actually 
illegal, but this was an "extraordinary . . . crisis." Given the alternative — "an athe- 
ist in religion, and a fanatic in politics" — steps just short of being unconstitutional 
should be taken. The Jeffersonian party included some who would so weaken the 
government that it would collapse, and still others who would produce "a REVOLU- 
TION, after the manner of BONAPARTE." The "particular nature of the crisis 
and the cause of social order. . . justified, in his overwrought mind, going be- 
yond the normal bounds "of delicacy and decorum/"* Governor Jay quietly refused 



'Alexander Hamilton to John Jay, May 7, 1800, in Alexander Hamilton, The fVorks of Alexander 
Hamilton, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (12 vols.: New York and London, 1904), X, pp. 371-374. 
' Ibid., pp. 372, 373, 374. 



68 Maryland Historical Magazine 



to stoop to such measures of expediency. Hamilton and the Federalists, however, 
had another more secret, more disingenuous plot to win the election away from both 
Jefferson and the incumbent Federalist president, John Adams. 

No sooner had the election outcome in New York become known than the Fed- 
eralist Congressmen, convening in the national capitol, Philadelphia, met in caucus 
to arrange the party ticket for the presidency. Undoubtedly Hamilton had dis- 
cussed this exigency before, for the caucus enacted his plan before he could arrive 
from New York. The Hamilton faction within the Federalist party had long been 
suspicious of Adams, but Adams's sending of the delegation to France made the 
suspicion public. In 1799 Hamilton had briefly complained to Washington of 
Adams's diplomacy,'* and James McHenry soon thereafter confided to the ex-Presi- 
dent: "The prevailing rumor has, no doubt, reached you, of disagreements in the 
cabinet; or that a difference of opinion exists between the President and the heads 
of departments, relative to the mission to France. I am sorry to inform you, that there 
is too much foundation for this report." He then criticized Adams's decision, and re- 
ported that Adams was displeased with him. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, 
and Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, all of whom Adams had inherited 
from Washington's administration. "Whether he will think it expedient to dismiss 
any, or how many of us, is a problem. . . . There are. however, powerful personal 
reasons, especially at this juncture, which forbid it; and it is more than possible, as 
these chiefly respect the eastern quarter of the Union, they will prevail."" 

As McHenry suspected, Adams still hoped in the fall of 1799 to prevent a complete 
rupture with the Hamilton faction, for he correctly believed that only a uailed party 
could possibly defeat Jefferson in 1800. So Adams controlled his spleen and perse- 
vered with the disloyal cabinet members who took their orders from Hamilton. By 
the early spring of 1800, however, the eventual split was becoming more obvious. In 
March William Bingham wrote of the "Schism which has taken place between the 
President & some of his friends on the Subject of the French mission"; four days 
later Robert Troup described "a decided and deep rooted disgust with Mr. Adams on 
the part of his best old friends. I understand from correct authority that the Eastern 
delegation in Congress, almost entirely, if not wholly, believe that the preservation of 
the federal cause essentially depends on removing Mr. Adams and appointing a 
more discrete man to the Presidency."^ 

Surely this "correct authority" was Alexander Hamilton, for he had already be- 
gun to prepare the ground for an election harvest resulting in Pinckney as president. 
Such a plan regui,red secrecy, for enough doubt in Adams's ability must be produced 



' Hamilton to Washington, Oct. 21, 1799, in ibid., p. 3.56. 

' McHenry to Washington, Nov. 10, 1799, in George Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Wash- 
ington and John Adams, Edited from the Papm-^^)0m^tV^I^Wmemf iiSf^ Treasury (2 vols.: New 
York. 1846), 11, pp. 281 282. 

' Wm. Bingham to Rufus King, March 5, 18«, a«d R- Troup to King, March 9, 1800, in Rufus King, 
The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, ed. diaries R. King (6 vols.: New York, 1894 1900), 111, 
pp. 205, 208. 



Politics, Inlogw, and the Presidency 



69 



to secure a strong co-candidate to whom the election could be swung, and yet this 
undercover campaign must not be made so public as to win Jefferson votes from 
disgruntled Adams supporters. As Hamilton wrote Theodore Sedgwick, Federalist 
Speaker of the House, on May 4, 1800 (just after the results of the New York elec- 
tion were known), "To support Adams and Pinckney equally is the only thing that 
can possibly save us from the fangs of Jefferson."^ 

Of course Hamilton's proposal was disingenuous, as Sedgwick, Pickering, Rufus 
King, Wolcott, McHenry, and the other Hamilton Federalists knew but which they 
hoped to conceal from the majority of Federalist politicians. According to the Con- 
stitution, the two candidates with the highest number of electoral votes were respec- 
tively president and vice president (if there were a tie, the House would decide). 
There was no separate vote for vice president. Presidential electors cast two ballots 
for president, and no differentiation being made in the voting, the recipient of the 
most votes was president. If all the Federalist electors in New England, New Jersey, 
and Delaware voted equally for .Adams and Pinckney. each candidate would have 
forty-nine votes. Assuming the pair could win a handful of votes in Maryland and 
North Carolina, where the electors were popularly elected. Federalist victory would 
hinge upon South Carolina even though New York had been lost. If the South 
Carolina legislature would agree to vote equally for Adams and Pinckney, then they 
would be tied, and Jefferson defeated. If the vote in fact was tied, Hamilton believed 
he could persuade the House to select Pinckney, but he planned to have one or more 
of the Federalist electors, once the election was sure, throw away their Adams vote, 
giving the election to the South Carolinian. Even if South Carolina, voting late in the 
year, gave its votes to Jefferson and Pinckney — which was deemed very possible — 
then it was hoped Jefferson and Pinckney would have an equal number of electoral 
votes, and the House would safely choose the Federalist. This was the complicated 
Hamiltonian plot to defeat both Adams and Jefferson and win the presidency for 
Charles C. Pinckney, whom Hamilton believed he could easily dominate. 

The entire plan required utmost secrecy, for if any fervent New England supporters 
of Adams got wind of the scheme, they might withhold their second ballots from 
Pinckney. Or, if any of these New England electors had reason to doubt that South 
Carolina would honor the caucus agreement to support both candidates equally, 
they would obviously leave Pinckney off their ballots. Then suspicious South Caro- 
linians might not vote for Adams. The result of the plan being known would be a 
Jefferson victory. So Hamilton and his co-conspirators began a campaign of duplic- 
ity, publicly supporting Adams and Pinckney equally, while carrying on an under- 
ground correspondence planting seeds of distrust about Adams without completely 
repudiating him. Theodore Sedgwick echoed Hamilton in his letter to Rufas King: 
"We have had a meeting of the whole federal party, on the subject of the ensuing 
election & have agreed that we will support, bona fide, Mr. Adams and General 



' Quoted in Cunningham, "Election of 1800," p. 43. 



70 Maryland Historical iVIagazine 




John Carroll. Maryland Historical Society. 



Pinckney. If this agreement be faithfully executed we shall succeed, but otherwise 
we cannot escape the fangs of Jefferson."' 

John Adams was aristocratic, aloof, and crotchety, but he was no fool. For the 
first three years of his presidency his freedom of action had been limited by the 
Hamilton-Washington clique. Gradually there had developed a more moderate 



' Sedgwick to King, May 1 1, 1800, in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, III, p. 238. See 
also Timothy Pickering to King, May 7, 1800, in ibid., p. 232. 



Politics, *ntriftt6, ami the Presfidency 7 1 



Adams faction in the Federalist party which represented a coalition of Adams sup- 
porters and southern Federalists like John Marshall, Charles Lee, and Patrick 
Henry.'" With the French threat immediate and the Jefferson campaign on the hori- 
zon, Adams had attempted to restrain his differences with the Hamilton Federalists 
both within and outside his cabinet. He feared an open break with them would 
destroy his chances of reelection. But then in December 1799 Washington died, de- 
priving Hamilton of his patron, and by early May the Hamilton forces were out- 
polled in New York, depriving Hamilton of his political power base. Adams saw his 
opportunity to separate from the weakened Hamiltonians, remove those disloyal to 
him from his cabinet, and thus solidify his position with the moderate and southern 
Federalists. He would also engage in political activities very near opM miis^pi^iiing 
to increase his popular support. * 

For these reasons, and against this partisan background, John Adams's pent-up 
anger toward his disloyal Secretary of War exploded in early May, 1800. McHenry 
had come for a routine conference, but when he arrived, Adams's emotions momen- 
tarily so overcame his limited tact that he subjected McHenry to a strong dose of jus- 
tified indignation. McHenry was deferential, and Adams was quickly sorry for his 
outburst, but the Secretary of War knew his tenure was effectively over. McHenry 
offered his resignation on May 6, 1800." At the same time Pickering's resignation 
was requested; when he refused, Adams dismissed him. Both were replaced with 
appointees supportive of Adams, as the Attorney General, Charles Lee, and the 
Secretary of the Navy, Benjamin Stoddert, had been advising. The Hamilton Fed- 
eralists expanded this episode into a caustic attack on Adams. McHenry, with whom 
we are concerned, pretended to have been oblivious to the real reasons he was fired. 
In his letter to Bishop Carroll, below, and in a similar letter to his nephew, John 
McHenry, he presented the President in a most unfavorable light, dismissing long- 
time public servants for light and transient causes after an unjustified outburst of 
anger, pique, and jealousy.'^ Surely McHenry recognized that there were legitimate 
reasons for his removal — he had expected it as early as November 1799'^— ^*w4'4le 
publicly disagreed with Adams's sending the mission to France. His less than frank 
letter to Bishop Carroll was clearly designed to destroy trust and respect in the pres- 
idential stature of John Adams. McHenry's comments to Carroll implying that 
Adams was paranoid in suspecting the intentions of the Federalist caucus show this, 
for McHenry obviously knew what Hamilton was intriguing. 



'"The besl accounl of Adams Federalisls versus Hamilton Federalists is Kurtz, Presidency of John 
Adams. See also George Cabot to [Christopher] Gore. Jan. 21. 1800, in Henry Cabot Lodge, Life and Let- 
ters of George Cabot (Boston, 1877), pp. 268 269. 

" A good description of this outburst is in Page STm\.\\, J ohn Adams (2 vols.: Garden City, N. Y., 1962), 
II, pp. 1027 1028. The date of McHenry's resignation is incorrectly given as tfce j|pFiM£.iif VW9 in Roddy, 
"Maryland and the Presidential Election of 1800," p. 245n. 

'^The letter to Bishop Carroll, May 16, 1800, is printed below; the letter to John McHenry, May 20, 
1800, is reprinted in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, II, pp. 346-348. 

"McHenry to Wa*i«gton, Nov. 10, 1799, iii mi., gj. 2«l-282. 



72 fyliiiimiaiiit' iliytiTifiriiiiitf Mm^t^gkm 



The Hamiltonians desperately attempted to use what they portrayed as the com- 
pletely unjustified firing of McHenry (and Pickering) to discredit Adams, and in 
their own minds, overwhelmed with fear that men of their kind would no longer con- 
trol the government, they perhaps sincerely convinced themselves that Adams had 
acted tyrannously. In fact, McHenry was both disloyal to the administration and 
incompetent for the job. When arguing with Washington in 1792 -93 to force Jefferson 
to resign as Secretary of State, "Hamilton had laid down the principle that, he said 
then, ought to govern the conduct of members of the Cabinet — implicit obedience 
to the President or resignation. Unity, energy and responsibility were impossible, he 
asserted, without the subordination of the heads of the departments to the Chief 
Executive.'"* That McHenry obeyed Hamilton dutifully is evident in Hamilton's 
correspondence. In March 1797 Hamilton sent McHenry a list of specific things to 
do: "Increase the revenues vigorously and provide naval forces for convoys. Purchase 
a number of vessels now built the most fit for sloops-of-war and cutters. . . . Form a 
provisional army of 25,000 men. . . Hamilton was running the war department 
through a weak McHenry. As Hamilton concluded, "I am really, my friend, anxious 
that this should be your plan. Depend on it, it will unite the double advantage of si- 
lencing enemies and satisfying friends. I write you this letter on your fidelity. No 
mortal must see it or know its contents.'"^ Thus Hamilton secretly "advised" 
McHenry and, in modern presidential parlance, stroked his vanity. 

Hamilton and his friends also recognized McHenry's limitations. Hamilton him- 
self observed to Washington: "my dear friend McHenry is wholly insufficient for 
his place, with the additional misfortune of not having himself the least suspicion of 
the fact . . . you perhaps may not be aware of the whole extent of this insufficiency. 
It is so great as to leave no probability that the business of the War Department can 
make any tolerable progress in his hands."'* Washington was aware, however, for he 
agreed that McHenry was "unequal to great exertions or deep resources."" Oliver 
Wolcott, the pro-Hamilton Secretary of the Treasury, concurred, writing to Fisher 
Ames that McHenry was "not skilled in the details of Executive business."" 

Knowing McHenry's lack of both competence and loyality to the president, the 
Hamiltonians could not have been insensitive to Adams's action. Yet they correctly 
sensed that in so dismissing him and Pickering, Adams was throwing down the 
gauntlet and taking the offensive to assure his 'reelection. They therefore stepped up 
their letter-writing campaign, coyly advocating the support of both Adams and 
Pinckney while hinting to certain influential men that Adams ^^ii^ ibm Mirable 

" Miller, Alexander Hamilton, p. 517. 

"Hamilton to McHenry, March 22 (?), 1797, in Hamilton, Works of Hamilton, X, pp. 241-243. Cf. 
Hamilton to McHenry, Aug. 25, 1798, in ibid., pp. 317-318. 

" Hamilton to Washington, July 29, 1798, in ibid., pp. 302-303. 

" Quoted in Broadus Mitchell, Alexander Hamilton: The National Adventure, 1788-1804 (New York, 
1962), p. 438. 

" Wolcott to Ames, Dec. 29, 1799, in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and 
Adams, 11, p. 315. Bernard St«iner, in his l^^fff^if^gmvmidenee of James MeHtnryiCtevtAmd, 1907), 
minimizes his faults. 



I 



Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 73 




Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Maryland Historical Society. 



than Pinckney. McHenry, now completely put out with the President, contributed 
to this campaign. Oliver Wolcott, not sure of McHenry's diligence in the cause, 
exhorted "If you will but do your part, we shall probably secure General Pinckney's 
election.'"' Four days later McHenry replied to Wolcott, cautiously marking his 
letter "private." He worriedly reported that many of the Maryland Federalists, who 
earnestly wanted "to act right, and to place in the presidential chair a truly federal 
character," misunderstood the plan. They were actually operating on the assumption 
that "fair and honourable endeavours should be used by them ... to obtain concur- 
rent votes for Mr. Adams and Mr. Pinckney."^" He frankly doubted that the secret 
scheme to depose Adams would work. Yet he concluded: 



" Wolcott to McHenry, July 18, 1800, in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and 
Adams, II, p. 381. 

" McHenry to Wolcott, July 22, in ibid., p. 385. 



f 4 M arftaMd Historical hAm§mkm 



I may possibly satisfy some of our most prominent characters that the peace and prosperity 
of our country have been brought into jeopardy by the present chief to answer electioneer- 
ing purposes; that under a government dissimilar from that of the Great Frederic, like him 
he would be every thing, and do every thing himself; that he wants the prudence and discre- 
tion indispensable to enable him to conduct with propriety and safety even the colloquial 
intercourse permitted between a President and foreign ministers; that he is incapable of ad- 
hering to any system, consequently must be forever bringing disgrace upon his agents and 
administration, that his foibles, passions, and prejudices, are of a stamp which must ex- 
pose him incessantly to the intrigues of foreigners, and the unprincipled and wickedly am- 
bitious men of either party; and that the high and dearest interests of the United States 
cannot possibly be safe under his direction.^' 

It was in this vein, and in conlemplalion of this election strategy, that Janies Mc- 
Henry wrote to Bishop John Carroll on May 16, 1800. McHenry began with a refer- 
ence to Reverend Mr. Rivet, a French Catholic missionary to the Ouabache and 
Illinois Indians who was stationed at Post Vincennes. Since the early 1790s George 
Washington had been interested in acculturating the Indians on the frontier. Bishop 
Carroll in 1792 had offered Catholic priests to help perform such a religious and 
civilizing function, and Washington replied that the Indian wars in process made 
an offer impossible to accept just then, but he concluded by expressing his opin- 
ion 

that the most effectual means of securing the permanent attachment of our savage neigh- 
bors is to convince them that we are just, and to shew them that a proper and friendly inter- 
course with us would be for our mutual advantage; 1 cannot conclude without giving you 
my thanks for your pious and benevolent wishes to effect this desirable end, upon the mild 
principles of Religion and Philanthropy. And when a proper occasion shall offer, I have no 
doubt but such measures will be pursued as may seem best calculatued to communicate 
liberal instruction, and the blessings of society, to their untutored minds. ''^ 

General "Mad" Anthony Wayne's victory at Fallen Timbers in 1794 soon made 
possible the kind of missionary activities both the President and the Bishop desired. 
The administration began a policy of paying a government allowance of $200 annu- 
ally to such missionaries who were, in McHenry's words, '"humanising and moral- 
ising the Indians" and reconciling them "to our Government and interests. "^^ Ap- 
parently bureaucratic lapses often caused delays in paying the missionaries, for in 
June 1796 McHenry had written Bishop Carroll that steps were being taken so that 
Rivet would "in future receive his pay more regularly and in specie."^" Again in the 
l«^er here reprintid^. 1^ %oing Secretary of War assured jMboji Carroll that 



''Ibid., p. 386. 

" Washington to Reverend John Ctrrell, April 10, 1792, in The Writings of George Washington, ed. 
John C. Fitzpatrick (39 vols.: Washington, 1931 44). XXXII, p. 20. 

" M. Annabelle Melville, John Carroll of Baltimore: Founder of the American Catholic Hierarchy 
(New York, 1955), pp. 167 168; and McHenry to Bishop Carroll, May 29, 1796, in Steiner, Life of Mc- 
Utnry, p. 172. 

^' McHenry to Bishop Carroll, June 12, 1796, in the Archives of the Archdiocese of Baltimore. 



Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 



75 




Alexander Hamilton. Maryland Historical Society. 



even though he was leaving the office he would see to it that Mr. Rivet was duly paid. 

McHenry then recounted the progress of the election year, mentioning the Federal- 
ist defeat in New York and the election controversy in Pennsylvania. The remainder 
of the letter gave a rather jaundiced picture of Adams — he was not well liked, was 
suspicious, distrustful, apprehensive, impassioned, jealous, impolite. McHenry 
casually mentioned that these confidential revelations might also be shown to the 
estimable Charles Carroll of Carrollton, The obvious intent was to secure his sup- 
port for the anti-Adams faction in the Maryland election. The following is an exact 
transcription of the letter. 

Philadelphia 16 May 1800 

Dear Sir. 

1 received yesterday the enclosed letter from your good missionary the Revd. Rivett. It 
is long since an arrangement was made relative to his pay which I have no doubt is ready 
for his order. 1 shall however, before my leaving the office enquire of the Pay-Master Gen- 
eral who is here, whether my directions on the subject have been executed, and at all events 
enforce them. 

By the latest information from New York, it is reduced nearly to a certainty, that the 
antifederal ticket has prevailed throughout the State, by a small majority. You will add to 



7S Maryland Histork;^^ M^aisiiie 



this, the influence which certain characters among those elected must enjoy, in a popular 
assembly (who chuse the electers of the President) over inferior abilities, and men without 
the opportunity to be rightly informed, or penetration to know when they are so. 

It is also a problem, what kind, of [or] if any, compromise will take place between the 
two parties in Pennsylvania on the subject of a district election law, and if a law is agreed 
to, for whom the federal Pensylvanians [sic] will vote on the occasion." 

The Eastern representatives to Congress will return generally speaking to their respec- 
tive states more indisposed to. than deserous of the election of Mr, Adams; the South Caro- 
lina federalists, equally if not more averse to his succeeding, and with the most decided 
inclination for general Pinckneys success. 

1 hope that you will not think that any or all of these circumstances induced my resigna- 
tion at so very important a crisis, I will mention to you in confidence what led to tWs event, 
which you may communicate to our estimable Mr. [Charles] Carroll [of Carrollton] under 
the same restriction. 

We have had for some time, as the Aurora^' expressed it, a disjointed cabinet. In other 
words, Mr. Wolcott, Mr. Pickering and myself were decidedly of opinion, that the mission 
to France might have been dispensed with. We thought the situation in which the Country 
then was, the most desirable in which it could be placed or kept during the existence of the 
war in Europe, or between England and France. The President thought otherwise, and 
could be well with nobody who did not think well of the mission. Upon second thoughts Mr, 
Stoddert and Mr. Lee'" thought as he did. From this moment 1 began to see a dissolution of 
the ministry, if we may so call the heads of Departments, and [to] scent workings to produce 
it. Stoddert you know is pretty dexterous at intrigue. I was not however, at least 1 so per- 
suade myself, marked out by him, but became, without any agency of his necessarily in- 
volved in the execution of the plan to secure the Presidents election. The Presidcflft more 
particularly of late felt exceedingly alarmed for his election, and every day more and more 
distrustful of those heads of departments who were not constantly feeding him with some 
•news respecting it. 

In this state of his mind, and while the issue of the election in New York was dreaded, 



In 1796 as in previous presidential elections, the Pennsylvania electors had been selected at large. 
The Federalists, who controlled the state senate in 1800, recognized that a similar method would give all 
or most of the state's electoral votes to Jefferson, so they determined to change the method and have the 
legislature choose them. The Republican majority in the house wanted to continue the old process. This 
congressional dispute continued throughout late 1799 and most of 1800, resulting in a solid stalemate. On 
October 14, 1800, the state congressional elections were held, producing a Republican victory in the con- 
test. But by this date there was no time for popular election of the presidential electors; the congress would 
have to choose. And despite Republican successes in the October election, the Federalists still had a slim 
majority in the senate. The stalemate continued. Not until late November did the conference committee 
work out a compromise whereby eight Republican and seven Federalist electors were chosen, giving Penn- 
sylvania in effect only one vote. Since the Republicans won ten of thirteen Congressional seats that year, 
the Pennsylvania electoral vote gravely under represented the actual Republican sentiment of the state. 
Harry M. Tinkcom, TJ^ Republicans and Federalists in Pennsylvania, l79O-iS0i {Wmm^emi, P«., 1950), 
pp. 243-252. 

"The Philadelphia Aurora, edited first by Benjamin Franklin Bache, grandson of the famous Franklin, 
and later by William Duane, was ferociously anti-Federalist. Only death prevented the scurrilous Bache 
from being tried for libel. 

" Benjamin Stoddert (1751 1813), from Maryland, was the first Secretary of the Navy, and Charles 
Lee (1758 -1815), from Virginia, served as Attorney General from November 1795 to 1801, wiwn Jefferson 
was inaugurated. 



Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 77 




George Washington. Maryland Historical SocietY. 



which every one said was to be decisive of his election, the federal members of Congress 
held a caucus as it is called, in which with very few exceptions it was determined, that each 
in his State would use his best endeavours, to have Mr. Adams and Major Genl. Pinckney 
run for President, without giving one a preference to the other. This necessarily increased 
his apprehensions to their heighth, and rendered him on the evening of the 5th instant (to 
me who had known nothing about the caucus) indecent and at times outrageous. General 
Washington had saddled him with three Secretaries. There was no bounds to his jealosy or 
rude concerns. In short the conversation ended in my resignation next morning, to take 
place at my request the 1st of June. Mr. Pickering was thrown out a few days after. Mr. 
Wolcott is retained, only because the President is affraid, were he to be dismissed or forced 
to resign, of derangements in the affairs of the Treasury. 

I will give you more particulars when I have the pleasure to see you which 1 hope will 
be soon. 

1 am my Dear & respected sir very truly & af[fecjt[ionate]ly yours. 

James M.Henry 

Right Rev. Bishop Carroll 

Bishop Carroll was politically conservative, identifying — as did so many others of 
his social class — the Federalist party with the cause of religion. Expediency alone 
would have required him to support the governing establishment. But there were 
other reasons as well; George Washington seemed the very model of the upright, 
honest. Christian leader, and he had supported the French missionaries on the fron- 
tier. Correspondingly, Bishop Carroll associated the Republican party with those 



78 



Mar^iMiflll^ical Magazine 



advocates of the French Revolution who were vigorously anticlerical and anti- 
Catholic. So McHenry, who was a friend of the Bishop, safely assumed that Bishop 
Carroll supported the Federalists; subtle letters would, he hoped, ensure that Carroll 
would use his influence for the right Federalist candidate. Likewise Charles Carroll 
of Carrollton, wealthy, educated, and the epitomy of Maryland aristocracy, w*i a 
dependable Federalist. These were the kind of leaders whose correct position was a 
prerequisite if the Hamilton plan were to succeed. And it seemed to McHenry, on 
September 1, 1800, that he had planted the seeds well, for he wrote that "a frienfl of 
mine, at my instance, visited Charles Carroll, of Carrollton . . . and informs me . . . 
that he considered [Adams] totally unfit for the office of President and would sup- 

I port, as much as he could, the election of General Pinckney."^* 

In the summer of 1800 another Federalist ploy was begun in Maryland that went 

» beyond letter writing. Since 1795 presidential electors in the state had been popularly 

chosen by district, which meant, as the Republicans were growing in support, that at 
least several electors would be pledged to the Republican candidates. If the electoral 
method were changed to allow the legislature to choose the electors, then a Federalist 
controlled legislature could deliver electors pledged to Adams and Pinckney. After 
all, the Republicans in nearby Virginia had earlier in the year changed their method 
of choosing electors to safeguard Jefferson's unanimous vote. Robert Goodloe 
Harper, newly arrived in Maryland from South Carolina and one of the leading pro- 
moters of the secret South Carolina scheme to shift the election to Pinckney, opened 
the "electoral reform" campaign with his pamphlet, Bystander: or a Series of Letters 
on the "'Legislative Choice" of Electors in Maryland (Baltimore, 1800). Harper was 
in constant communication with the other Hamilton Federalists, but to what extent 
Hamilton himself was pulling the strings behind this maneuver so reminiscent of his 
abortive New York efforts is unknown. Hamilton did recommend to the cooperative 
McHenry that "Maryland had better choose by the Legislature. If you have a ma- 
jority of Federal votes throughout, we can certainly exclude Jefferson & if we please, 
bring the question between Adams and Pinckney to the House of Representatives."" 
The Federalists consequently ran legislative candidates pledged to "reform" the 
choice of presidential electors. Yet this device failed, for shrewd voters saw that 
such a change would remove from them the direct election of electors. In the face of 
popular opposition, even some Federalists hesitated to advocate their party's posi- 
tion. Hamilton's operatives had misjudged the public sentiment, for the electoral 
issue more than anything else produced a Republican victory in the election, giving 
the Republicans a majority in the new state congress, and in the following district 
vote for presidential electors, the ten votes were equally divided between Federalist 
and Republican supporters.'" Harper's plan to snatch the election from Jefferson 

" McHenry to Oliver Wolcolt, Sept. 1, 1801, in Gibbs, Memoirs of ihe Administrations of Washington 
and Adams, II, p. 415. 

"Hamilton to McHenry, Aug. 27, 1800, in Steiner, Life of McHenry, p. 466. 

"This entire Maryland scheme is ably discussed in detail by Roddy, "Maryland and the Presidential 
Election of 1800", pp. 252-256, 259-260, and Cox, Robert Goodloe Harper, pp. 184-188. 



Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 79 




Aaron Burr. By Gilbert Sluart. Prom Diclionary of American Portraits. 



backfired because his attempt to change the voting procedure long after the election 
year was in progress was simply too transparent a partisan move. 

In retrospect the Hamilton Federalists appear to have lost touch with reality in 
the months after the New York election and the dismissal of McHenry and Pickering. 
They accused Adams of attempting a coalition with Jefferson," of demagogically 
"engaging the force of the passions and prejudices of the populace on his side,'"^ 
of deserting "the system which was established by Washington & which as under- 
stood & practised has been conceived to be wise & just.'"' The dismissal of the 
Washington cabinet appointees was final proof of Adams's apostasy, but his mission 
of 1799, seeking peace with "Jacobin" France at the risk of angering England, and 
simultaneously "inflaming" the rabble against the English to bolster his own popu- 
larity, seemed to the Hamiltonians the worst travesty against the principles of 
Washington. In reaction to Adams's taking to the stump to defend his administra- 
tion,'* the Hamiltonians became almost hysterical. Incredulous as it now appears. 



"Timothy Pickering to Rufus King, May 28, 1800, in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, 
III, p. 248; Pickering to George Cabot, June 16, 1800, in Lodge, Life of Cabot, p. 276. 

" George Cabot to Oliver Wolcott, July 20, 1800, in Lodge, Life of Cabot, p. 281. 
George Cabot to Rufus King, July 21, 1800, in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, 111, 
p. 279. 

" For Adams's campaigning, see Kurtz, Presidency of John Adams, pp. 397 400. 



80 MmiimmUimmm 



their imaginations transformed conservative John Adams into a mobocratic Jacobin, 
wHling to risk war with Great Britain rather than lose his office. 

Those who have need of the aid that popular impulse can lend to their designs probably will 
know that to command that impulse and to have all it's [sic] force it is necessary to agitate 
the popular passions. A cold multitude like a cold iron is too hard for the hammers — red 
hot, they are ductile to the pincers. How shall this heat, this welding heat, be imparted, and 
kept up? no way is so sure and obvious as re-exciting the rage against G[reat] B[ritain]. A 
war, or measures leading to war will heat every body red hot. Whether these steps are to be 
taken in all events, and of choice, or whether they are to be only the expedients of necessity 
and are to be adopted as occasions call for them, I will not say[.] But when a man thinks no 
cause good or safe without him, he may possibly act with as much blindness as extrava- 
gance when he resolves rather to hazard the ships than his captaincy." 

Hamilton was so opposed to Adams remaining in the presidency that he would do 
everything possible to defeat him, even if such desperate measures put Jefferson in 
the White House. "If we must have an enemy at the head of the government," he 
wrote to Theodore Sedgwick soon after the anti-Adams plot was hatched, 

let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve 
our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures. Under Adams, or under Mffermn, 
the government will sink. The party in the hands of whose chief it shall sink will sink wth h, 
and the advantage will all be on the side of his adversaries." 

Throughout the year the Hamilton Federalists continued their letter writing cam- 
paign, excoriating Adams and commiserating with one another over the declining 
political fortunes of the nation. Hamilton was almost alone in being able to see some 
possible good for their party if Jefferson won. Most, like Fisher Ames, saw only dis- 
aster: "Jefferson's election will greatly endanger our peace abroad, and order at 
home."^' Nevertheless, "however dangerous the election of Mr. Jefferson may prove 
to the community," wrote Oliver Wolcott, "I do not perceive that any portion of the 
mischief would be avoided by the election of Mr. Adams. We know the temper of his 
mind to be revolutionary, violent, and vindictive. . . With such intensity of feel- 
ing it is apparent why they were willing to risk everything in order to swing the elec- 
tion to Pinckney. More was involved than mere partisan politics — as pronounced 
as that was. The Hamiltonians were absolutely convinced that the continued safety 
and prosperity of their region, indeed, the survival of the nation itself, depended 



Fisher Ames to Rufus King, July 15, 1800, in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, 111, 
p. 277. 

" t^imiltan J0§.edgwick, May 10, 1800, in Hamilton, Worlcs of HamM'fMi,Xt^^ 375. 
"PSer ftmes to Rufus King, Sept. 24, 1800, in King, Life and Coi*itlfmlmtf:e-t^:Mi^--K§^, III, 
p. 306. 

" Wolcott to Fisher Ames, Aug. 10, 1800, in Gibbs, Memoirs M i m i^ istrm^lma »f itfte^^^on 
and Adams, II, p. 401. 



Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 81 




Robert Goodloe Harper. By St. Memin. Maryland Historical Society. 



upon their kind of leadership and their policies.'* Even though there were motives 
of status and economic interest, they were paranoid enough to believe that the al- 
ternatives to Pinckney were genuinely catastrophic. Only they — not the people — 
knew what was best; political intrigue, misinformation, slander, and deception were 
justified. This elitest concern was most clearly expressed by George Cabot, who 
wrote Alexander Hamilton that there was "one unanswerable reason for wishing 
Mr. Pinckney to succeed, and that is that the best, and indeed, all the truly good men 
would find themselves in their proper places, arranged under the banners of the Con- 



" John R. Howe, Jr., "Republican Thought and the Political Violence of the 1790s," American Quar- 
terly, 19 (Summer 1967), pp. 147-165. 



M Mwyland H (dories! MMgrnsMe 



stitution and laws, on the side of the national chief.""" In other words, "they will be 
in the places where the wise & good ought always to be found."*' 

Such a narrow conception of politics, such an elitest and self serving definition of 
"the wise & good," such an intemperate resort to manipulation of the electorate, 
was ultimately doomed to failure. The Hamiltonians were a minority faction of the 
minority party, and the shrill warnings of imminent disaster and Jacobin revolution 
revealed them for what they were. In the early fall Hamilton wrote a devastating 
critique of Adams, but his acerbic pamphlet attack backfired after it was pirated in 
(or leaked to) the press in late October. Hamilton had intended it only for certain 
Federalists, but now it was public. No Jeffersonian could have attacked his opponent 
more savagely. That Hamilton so praised McHenry for his "exposure" of Aiiws's 
supposedly unjustified and intemperate dismissal of the Secretary of War indicates 
the extremes to which he thought he was justified: 

111 treatment of Mr. M'Henry cannot fail to awaken the sympathy of every person well ac- 
quainted with him. Sensible, judidous, well-informed, of an integrity never questioned, of 
a temper, which, though firm in the support of principles, has too much moderation and 
amenity to offend by the manner of doing it — 1 dare pronounce that he never gave Mr. 
Adams cause to treat him, as he did, whh unkindness. If Mr. Adams thought that his exe- 
cution of his office indicated a want of the particular qualifications required for it, he might 
have said so with gentleness, and he would have only exercised a prerogative entrusted to 
him by the Constitution, to which no blame could have been attempted; but it was unjusti- 
fiable to aggravate the deprivation of office by humiliating censures and bitter reproaches.*" 

In contrast the Jeffersonians ran a smooth, well organized campaign, and although 
Jefferson was buffeted by charges that he was an atheist and radical,*' these seemed 
to have little effect except in those regions where he had no strong appeal anyway. 
The internecine struggle in the Federalist party necessarily interfered with the 
party's success. Even in South Carolina the Federalist party was demoralized, while 
the Republicans had all the advantages. As a result, Jefferson and Burr, not Adams 
and Pinckney, received the Palmetto State's total electoral vote. The resulting tie in 
the national electoral vote is well known. A group of die-hard Federalists then con- 
nived, since they still controlled the House before the new legislature was seated, to 
break the tie in favor of Burr, whom they considered motivated purely by the desire 
for money and power, and hence susceptible to manipulation.** Hamilton came to 
his senses — partly out of genuine concern for the future of the nation that he had 



"Cabot to Hamilton, Aug. 10, 1800, in Lodge, ( ahot. p. 284. 

*' Cabot to Rufus King, Aug. 9, 1800. in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, III, p. 292. 
[Alexander Hamilton], Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Public Conduct and Char- 
acter of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States (2nd. ed., New York, 1800), p. 41. 

"Charles O. Lerche, Jr., "Jefferson and the Election of 1800: A Case Study in the Political Smear," 
William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd. ser., 5 (Oct. 1948), pp. 467-491. 

*' Alexander Hamilton to Oliver Wolcott, Dec. 16, 1800, in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of 
Washington and Adams, 11, p. 458. Also in Hamilton, Works of Hamilton, X, p. 392. 



Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 83 




John Jay. By Gilbert Stuart. From Diclionary oj American Porirails. 

done so much to establish, and partly because he hated and feared Burr and felt a 
grudging respect for Jefferson's adherence to principles — and began a feverish cam- 
paign to convince the doubting Federalists that they should vote for Jefferson. He 
wrote James A. Bayard, Congressman from Delaware, that Burr was "as unprinci- 
pled and dangerous a man as any country can boast — as true a Catiline as ever met 
in midnight conclave."" "Alas!" he wrote at the end of the year to a fellow High 
Federalist, "when will men consult their reason rather than their passions? What- 
ever they may imagine, the desire of mortifying the adverse party must be the chief 
spring of their disposition to prefer Mr. Burr. . . . Adieu to the Federal Troy, if they 
once introduce this Grecian Horse into their citadel. Trust me, very dear friend, you 
cannot render a greater service to your country than to resist this project."" 

The final resolution of the tie in a series of votes in the House is still unclear.*' 
Bayard, who perhaps always intended to drop his vote if the continued tie threat- 
ened the nation with either discord or the possibility of no president, announced be- 
fore the thirty-sixth ballot that he was going to abstain. This would result in Jeffer- 
son's victory; once the outcome was certain, the Federalists from the states of Ver- 
mont and Maryland abstained, giving those two states to Jefferson. Delaware and 
South Carolina abstained, recording no vote, and the four other New England states 
stuck with Burr to the end. No Federalist state cast a single vote for Jefferson. Bay- 
ard's break, whether influenced by his correspondence with Hamilton or not, was 
crucial. Perhaps he had received some subtle assurances on certain points of policy 



Hamilton to Bayard, Aug. 6, 1800, in Hamilton, Works of Hamilton, X, p. 387. 
" Hamilton to Oliver Wolcott, Dec. 17, 1800, in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington 
and Adams, 11, p. 460. 

*' There is a great body of scholarship on this final resolution of the election. See the appropriate pages 
in the books cited in footnote 2, above; Morten Borden, The Federalism of James A. Bayard (New Yori<, 
1955), chap. 7; and John S. Pancake, "Aaron Burr: Would-Be Usurper," William and Marv Quarterly, 
3rd. sen, 8 (April 1951), pp. 204-213. 



i# Mlf^^^il^ ^MltM Magazine 



from Samuel Smith, whom Bayard believed to be speaking for Jefferson. There is 
no evidence at all that Jefferson knowingly participated in any kind of bargain. But 
the crisis was over; the nation had changed political control without bloodshed. 

Jefferson's victory really marked the end of the Federalist Party. Younger, more 
moderate Federalists adopted the ways of their rivals,*' and found momentafy sec- 
cess in portions of New England, but the twilight of Federalism soon faded. Distrust 
of the people, the willingness to subvert the election process by blatant deception if 
tliat seemed to be the only way to keep one's position, an exclusive identifeatton of 
oneself with the good of the nation, all these doomed the Federalist party. 

James McHenry, for all his incompetence and abject loyalty to the Hamilton 
forces, came to realize this basic failure in his party. He seems to have feeognized 
the seaminess of their actions, and although he cooperated throughout the election 
year in the campaign conspiracy, one feels that he knew it was unethical, disgusting, 
and ultimately self defeating. He condemned himself along with his party in a heart- 
felt tester t© CMi*er Wolcott in the midst of the presidential canvass: 

Have our party shown that they possess the necessary skill and courage to deserve to be 
continued to govern? What have they done? They did not, (with a few exceptions) knowing 
the disease, the man and his nature, meet it when it first appeared, like wise and resolute 
patriots; they tampered with it, and thought of palliations down to the last day of the late 
session of Congress. Nay, their conduct, even now, notwithstanding the consequences full in 
their view, (should the present chief be elected) in most, if not all of the states, is tremulous, 
timid, feeble, deceptive, and cowardly. They write private letters. To whom? To each other, 
but they do nothing to give a proper direction to the public mind. They observe, even in their 
conversation, a discrete circumspection generally, ill calculated to diffuse information, or 
prepare the mass of the people for the result. They mediate in private. Can good come out 
trf Sijch a system? If the party recovers its pristine energy and splendour, shall I ascribe it 
to such cunning, paltry, indecisive, back-door conduct? Certainly 1 shall not, but to a kind 
and watchful Providence alone, who will not punish the many for the faults of the few, who 
overlooks our feebleness and follies, and who guides unerringly and according to the end he 
has ordained, all the govermments of the world. I carry, you see, my religious principles 
hito my politics.*'' 

McHenry was cmtrits, but the damage had already been, mud was continuing to 



" David Hackett Fischer, The Revolution of American Conservatism: The /^afeiml&t^trtytnihe Era 
of Jeffersonian Democracy (New York, 1965). 

" McHenry to Wolcott, July 22, 1800, in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and 
Adams, II, pp. 384-385. Evidently Charles Carroll of CarroUton and others were similarly disenchanted 
with the whole election process, for McHenry noted in a later letter: "What appears to be the present state 
of the public mind in Maryland . . . ? As far as my observation extends, there is every symptom of lan- 
guor, and inactivity, with some exceptions, among the well informed federalists, which every new recur- 
rence to the condua and character of the chief, seems rather to increase, than diminish. Mr. Charles 
Carroll, of CarroUton, did not go down to Annapolis, from his country residence, to aid in the election of 
members for our legislature. I also know many others who did not vote on the occasion." McHenry to 
Wolcott, Oct. 12, 1800, in ibid., p. 433. 



85 



be done. Any attempt to dictate the outcome of a presidential election by clandestine 
methods, then to prevent the voters from discovering those tactics in the belief that 
the people do not understand sufficiently to make the proper electoral choice, was 
destined to fail eventually. This is the real moral of the election of 1800, and it should 
not be forgotten. Jefferson's essential respect for the populace carried his party to 
political ascendancy. McHenry and the Hamiltonians MM that trust, and their 
viability as a political party evaporated. 



Notes on Maryland Historical 
Society Manuscript 
Collections 



RICHARD J. COX, Curator of Manuscripts 
A Description of the Vertical File 

The vertical file is infrequently used even though many of the most im- 
portant manuscripts of the Society are in it. The reason for this incongruity is that 
the vertical file is not understood. To rectify this, the following essay defines and 
describes the file. 

Technically, the vertical file is not a manuscript "collection." The Society's manu- 
script division has somewhat arbitrarily labeled a collection as a group of documents 
(purchased or donated in a group) numbering five items or more. Manuscripts ob- 
tained by the Society singly or as a group of less than five are placed within the ver- 
tical file. The catalogue to the vertical file in the manuscript reading room is handled 
in the same manner as the main catalogue except that instead of a collection an in- 
dividual document is indexed; this, of course, makes its information more detailed. 
For each manuscript there is a main descriptive card which is completely cross- 
referenced; the main cards signify the location of the manuscripts which are arranged 
in alphabetical order usually under the primary person's name but also, occassion- 
ally, under the document-type (such as "account book" or "inventory"). 

Though the vertical file is actually a collection of individual manuscripts, there is 
no limit of material on any one subject. Since the file is open-ended, i.e. always sub- 
ject to new additions, and presently consisting of well over 3000 pieces, it is possible 
that the amount of information on a topic will be quite great. Already a large Rev- 
olutionary War (MS. 1814), War of 1812 (MS 1846), and Civil War Collection (MS. 
1860) have been formed out of the vertical file (these collections are also open-ended). 
Also, recently, a Colonial Collection (MS. 2018) has been begun, and eventually the 
present vertical file will be partially disassembled into a number of other smaller col- 
lections. This latter project is to facilitate the completeness of the publication of the 
second volume to The Manuscript Collections of the Marylani Wtitmictd Society, 
now five years and 300 collections out of date. 

Of all the groupings of manuscripts at the Society, the vertical file is naturally 
the most diverse. Many manuscripts relate to politics, religion, the military, and eco- 
nomics and are not only confined to Maryland but also extend into the national and 
international scenes. Contrasted to this are the many family papers of the vertical file 
Mnicli five il^ ^ ^ view of the common life than fafl^l)' M tiiRm, however. 



86 



Manuscript Notes 



87 



they succeed at both. In 1850, for example, in writing to his nephew one man ex- 
pressed the importance of corresponding frequently; "it has been a long time . . . 
since you gave me your last epistle Presidents have been made and died Nations have 
been lost and won new stars added to the banner . . . and Jenny Lind has sung. . . 
His point had been effectively made. 

Many of the most interesting manuscripts in the vertical file concern politics. In 
early 1743 the fifth Lord Baltimore complained, as his predecessors had done, about 
the Assembly; "I find Great complyance in the Upper & none in the Lower House." 
There are letters describing the 1832 Presidential election in Maryland, an account 
of the influence of the "Know Nothing" Party in the state in the mid-1850s, and many 
letters from Marylanders seeking political appointments through new Presidential 
administrations. In 1898 Charles J. Bonaparte, who later served as Theodore Roose- 
velt's Secretary of the Navy and Attorney General, explained to a friend his plan for 
cleaning up Baltimore City politics by organizing a committee of between twenty 
and thirty men "to get into shape an Independent movement sufficiently formidable 
to frighten, if possible, both the parties [Democrat and Republican] into making 
good nominations (in which case there will be nothing more for us to do), but, if one 
only will give us decent candidates, to secure the success of this one; with the alter- 
natives of a wholly independent nomination in every case where neither party offers 
us a fit man to vote for." The frustrations of a political reformer working against the 
traditional two-party system can be sensed. A smaller number of the manuscripts 
concern national politics. There are, for instance, two David Crockett letters of 1835 
in which he attacks Andrew Jackson for interfering in his bid for re-election to Con- 
gress; according to Crockett, it was below the dignity of the President to be involved 
in "open Electionaring [sic]." Some of these letter to past generations seem very 
contemporary in tone and circumstance. Samuel Chase in 1790 wrote of the con- 
nection of the liberty of the press and government; Chase thought the press could 
question the government but must not publish and expose "the follies (or even 
Vices) of private Citizens. . . ." The difficulty, which has not been resolved, was in 





Archbishop Samuel Eccleston. Maryland Historical Society. 



88 Maryland Historical Magazine 



ascertaining how private a public official's life could be. 

For researchers interested in economic history, a look at the vertical file will not 
be disappointing. Several documents illustrate the early growth of Baltimore Town, 
later Baltimore City; in 1748 subscriptions were raised to build a fence to Iceep the 
domestic animals, and three years later the first Market House and Town Hall were 
planned. There are many day books, such as one of an Annapolis merchant for 1772- 
1773, account books, and miscellaneous receipts and accounts. There is the stock re- 
port of the Baltimore, Annapolis and Drum Point Telephone Company of Baltimore 
City for 1907, showing that even after ten years of existence the company was neither 
the size nor as profitable as today's giants. One of the most fascinating letters is from 
Amos Kendall in 1834 describing a recent run on banks. Kendall, an avid supporter 
of the Jackson administration and serving as the fourth auditor of the Treasury, ad- 
vised Thomas Ellicott, a Baltimore banker, "to keep clear of entangling alliances and 
so strengthen yourself as to stand if every other Bank in Baltimore fails." 

There are numerous documents conerned with literature, the fine arts, niimiies, 
and education within the vertical file. There is a letter from Junius Booth to the 
Editor of the American and Commercial Advertiser describing his first perform- 
ance of Hamlet; Junius Booth was the father of the famous Shakespearean actor 
Edwin Booth and the equally infamous John Wilkes Booth. Ross Jungnickel wrote 
to Robert Garrett in 1890 concerning the prospects of the Baltimore Symphony 
Orchestra's second season, with a goal to "maintain a fine permanent Orchestra in 
Baltimore, consisting of fifty of the very best professional musicians, in order to 
foster and elevate the standard of musical culture." There are the minutes of the 
American Association for the Advancement of Science's meeting in Baltimore in 
1858, the forming of the Baldwin Literary and Debating Society of Savage, Mary- 
land, and the roll book and account book of the Andrew Small Academy in Darnes- 
town, Maryland for 1892-1906. In the vertical file there is also a letter from John J. 
Audubon in 1833 just after the publication of the first volume of his famous The 
Birds of America predicting that "it will take in all probability Eight Years more to 
finish the Work from this date." 

Religion is well represented in the vertical file with some of the file's finest letters 
on this subject. In one of 1893, Oliver Wendell Holmes, the famous American author, 
writes freely of his conception of the American Catholic Church: "You must have 
misunderstood me in thinking I spoke of the Roman Catholic Church as the future 
church of America. 1 think its organization a wonderful piece of machinery but I 
never thought it could have more than a fractional hold of our people." In 1839, 
Samuel Ecclestion, the Archbishop of Baltimore, wrote of the city's harsh reaction 
to the establishment of the first convent: "In Baltimore, especially, I was not pre- 
pared to expect them [riots], where the very name of our city reminds me of the 
Catholic founder of Maryland, one of the earliest & truest friends of Civil and re- 
ligious liberty. Yet, it is in this city, that we have witnessed a cruel and unmanly 
attack upon the reputations & peaceful abode of inoffensive women, many of whom 
are descended from the first i^MwMi'tff Maryland, and who, holding still the faith 



Manuscript Notes 89 

of their fathers, have chosen to enter a religious community and divide their time 
between the practices of prayer, self-denial, and the instruction of youth." There is 
also, surprisingly, a "Father Divine" letter of 1938 explaining his religious convic- 




Charles Joseph Bonaparte, Maryland Historical Society. 



tions. 



The recent upsurges of interest in Black History and Women's Studies have in- 
creased the usage of manuscripts at the Society. The vertical file contains some im- 
portant sources. There is the 1825 Constitution of the Anti-Slavery Society of Mary- 
land and the minutes of its earliest meetings, an 1828 notice for a runaway slave, a 
1789 Benjamin Banneker letter on the eclipses of the sun, and a 1790 letter of a 
Maryland slave owner questioning how to hire out his slave. Also in the vertical file 
is an 1891 Susan B. Anthony letter in which she suggests how to obtain a speaker for 
the National American Woman Suffrage Association meeting to be held in Balti- 
more, the records of the Female Bible Society of Annapolis for 1829-1847, and a 1876 
report from the Home of Fallen Women in Baltimore. 

Of course, most of the manuscripts in the vertical file are about Maryland. One of 
the earliest manuscripts in the vertical file is a 1632 letter from George Calvert, 
written just eighteen days before his death, about threats of the Virginia Company 
to thwart his plans for founding the Maryland colony. A 1780 receipt for Henry 
Harford's payment of two arrow heads for Maryland shows his wistful thinking 
that Maryland might somehow ^main a colony. Other intriguing manuscripts are 
a letter picturing the 1817 Jones ills flood and a 1844 letter containing the reminis- 
cences of Robert Gilmor of Baltimore ("as there are few now living who recollect the 
phases of our once small town but now our large & wealthy City. . . ."). There are 
even materials on the history of th. Society, such as a 1890 John H. B. Latrobe letter 
reflecting on the origins of the Sof^'ety half-a-century earlier. 

This description has not been meant to be comprehensive but only to point out the 
highlights of the richness of the vertical file. Many other topics than those men- 
tioned are represented. The ver'^al file is not simply a "catch-all" for the sorting 
of individual manuscripts, it is itally important component of the Society's manu- 
scripts collections. 



Accessions of the Manuscript 
Division Since the Publication 
of Manuscript Collections of 
the Maryland Historical 
Society in August, 1968^ 



Elk Ridge Landing Papers (MS. 1894). Ledger sheets of a storekeeper at Elk 
Ridge Landing; 1 box, 1786-7. Donor: Dennis Claude. 



' Indexed litii^ and description of 1,724 of the Society's collections. Available from the Society for 
$15.00. 



X 




llNiMi'vcript Hates 91 



EUicott Land Papers (MS. 1960). Deeds for land in Baltimore City. Also a receipt 
for purchase of clothing; 7 items, 1795-1818. Donor: C. Ellis EUicott. 

EUicott Letters (MS. 1952). Mostly concerning ma iron ore lease IMfMH^i^^jtr- 
ginia; 11 items, 1848 94. Donor: Unknown. 

Finney, Ebenezer D., Papers (MS. 1978). Miscellaneous collection including some 
letters about occurrences during the Civil War in Mississippi, family news, and stu- 
dent life at P|;inceton; 13 items, 1783, 1864-1900. Donor: Mrs. William Parker 
Finney. 

First Unitarian Church of Baltimore Records (MS. 1895). Includes correspond- 
ence of Williams and Burnap families and Enoch Pratt concerning this church. Also 
records of baptism, funerals, and marriages; 3 boxes, 1784-1928. Donor: Unitarian- 
Universalist Church. 

Fitzhugh Account Books (MS. 1831). Account books of Colonel William Fitzhugh 
of Calvert County, Maryland; 2 vols., 1761 74. Donor: R. G. Williams. 

Foard, F. Millard, Papers (MS. 1984). Letters from Baltimore City College 
alumni to Foard, Alumni Relations Correspondent. Several letters concern his 
oriental art collection; 296 items, 1923, 1949 73. Donor: F. Millard Foard. 

Forman, Mrs. M. B., Diary of (MS. 1779). Depiction of plantation life at For- 
man's estate, "Rose Hill," Cecil County, Maryland; 6 boxes, 1814-54. Donor: Mrs. 
Harry Boden. 

Fort Warren Prisoners' Records (MS. 1957). Contains many entries by such politi- 
cal prisoners as George William Brown, Mayor of Baltimore City, and Frank Key 
Howard, Editor of the Daily Exchange. Fort Warren was located in Massachusetts; 
I vol., 1861-2. Purchase: FnUaiHe estate of Rochesse Buelle with tiK^ MTkmms 
Vance Little. 

Fowler, David, Collection (MS. 1876.1). Personal, business, and legal papers of 
David Fowler, Maryland lawyer and longtime Chief Judge of {be It^Kl^lilid Circuit 
Court; 6 boxes, 1853 1909. Donor: Mrs. Laurence H. Fowler. 

Fowler, John H., Collection (MS. 1876.2). Small collection of various business 
letters, leases, stock transfers, and contracts of Fowler, a partner in Fowler & Ziegler, 
flour and commission merchants in Baltimore; 25 items, ^^73 98. Donor: Mrs. Lau- 
rence H. Fowler. 

Fowler, Laurence Hall, Collection (MS. 1876.3). A few early personal papers, 
notebooks, text books, etc. of this distinguished Baltimore architect; Fowler was the 
architect of the War Memorial, Hall of Records in Annapolis, Evergreen House 
Library, etc.; 15 items, 16 notebe^, 1 ^spbook, IfTf-lfSI. Donor: Mrs. Lau- 
rence H. Fowler. 

Fowler, Robert, Collection (MS. 1876). Business papers and correspondence of 
Robert Fowler, state treasurer, legislator, owner of flour mill and distillery, and a 
director of the Baltimore and Ohio ^ilr^d; 175 items, 1844-91. Donor: Mrs. Lau- 
rence H. Fowler. 

Frisbee Letters (MS. 1942). Love letters of Lt. Rob R. Frisbee to Hattie Bonbright 
and a newspaper clipping concerning the Lincoln abduction conspiracy; 18 letters, 1 



92 Maryland |^|if^||^^ MNP"i^ 



newspaper clipping, 1862-65. Donor: Mrs. R. B. Randel. 

Gaddess Papers (MS. 1946). Documents related to Gaddess Bros., marble dealers, 
newspaper clippings, and genealogies of the Gaddess, Ensor, Gorsuch, and Carter 
families; 21 items, 1737 1896. Donor: G. Harvey Davis. 

Gary, James A., Papers (MS. 1980). Letters from John Sherman and James A. 
Garfield to Gary about Baltimore Republicans. Also some newspaper clippings; 8 
items, 1879-80. Donor: Miss Louisa M. Gray. 

Gatchell, Samuel H., Collection (MS. 1988). Letters from Gatchdl, at sea, to his 
wife in Maryland; 7 items, 1844-46. Donor. Howell L. Gatchell. 

Gorman Testimonial Book (MS. 706.1). Compiled by Douglas H. Thomas, Pres- 
ident, Merchants National Bank, Baltimore. The Testimonial was given because of 
Senator Arthur P. Gorman's action in defeating the Cloture Rule and the Force Bill; 
1 vol., 1891. Donor: Arthur Gorman Lambert. 

Gorsuch Receipts (MS. 1909.2). Receipts of Joshua Gorsuch, a sea captain who 
owned a home near North Point; 100 items, 1808-19. Donor: Enoch Pratt Free 
Library. 

Greene Papers (MS. 1962). Papers concerned with the Baltimore coffee fleet. 
Many center about Captain Edwin F. Greene, a master in the fleet in the late nine- 
teenth and early twentieth centuries; 2 boxes, 1842-1955. Donor. Mrs. F. A. Greene. 

Green Spring and Worthington Valley Planning Council, Inc. Papers (MS. 1889). 
Minutes, original reports, plans, brochures, etc. of this planning council, formed in 
1964 to preserve the Valley area; 2 boxes. 1964 71 (open-ended collection). Donor: 
Dr. Douglas G. Carroll, Jr. 

Graves/Stewart Collection (MS. 1991). Letters, manuscripts, and assorted 
papers of these two families; 17 items, 1865 1963. Donor: Mrs. Arthur Richard 
Wyatt. 

Griffith-Staats Cookbooks (MS. 1765). Cookbooks of Mary Black Griffith and 
Elizabeth Griffith Staats; 2 vols. Donor: Unknown. 

Gunpowder District Grange (MS. 1863.1). Minutes of the proceedings of the Gun- 
powder Grange #127 in Baltimore County, Maryland; 2 vols., 1875 81. Donor: Mrs. 
R. M. Schauffler and William T. Brown in memory of Mrs. Caroline Cator Taylor 
Brown, daughter of Col. Bf^fiffltl WMMIk'W^^. 



GENEALOGICA MARYLANDIA 



Captain John Fulford's 

Company 

February 13, 1776, 
to May 21, 1777 

Edited by MARY K. MEYER 



As our nation's bicentennial approaches, historians and genealogists are becoming 
increasingly aware of the importance of records relating to our long period of gestation and the 
travail of our birth as a republic. These records are now sought after diligently and made 
available to the public when found. 

There are many such records. They have not been "lost" or newly discovered: instead they 
have lain quietly through the years awaiting the attention they deserve. Such is the manuscript 
presented here. 

In anticipation of a demand for Revolutionary items created by the approaching bicenten- 
nial, the entire holdings of the Manuscripts Division of the Maryland Historical Society were 
examined during the past two years for such material. In the process, the original of this record 
was found in the vertical file but has since been transferred to the Revolutionary War Collection 
(MS. 1814). 

Instructions for inlisting Men in the Service of Maryland 

You are to inlist no Man who is not able bodied, healthy and a good marcher, nor such whose 
attachment to the liberties of America you have cause to suspect. Young hearty robust men who 
are tied by Birth Family Connections or property to this Country; and are well practised in the 
use of firearms are by much to be preferred. 

2. You'll h^ye great Regard to moral Character; Sobriety in particular. 

3. Toil afe not to inlist any servant imported, nor with out the leave of the -Master any 
Apprentice. 

4. Those who engage in the Service are to be inlisted according to the Form prescribed by this 
Convention. 

5. You shall appoint such men Serjeants and Corporals as recommend themselves by their 
ability, Activity and Diligence, and you are also to appoint the Drummer and Fifer to your 
Company. 

6. You will use all Diligence in compleating your Company and report to the Council of 
Safety. 

7. You are to be allowed 7/6 per week for the Subsist of Recruits till they arrive at their 
Station. 



93 



94 Maryland Historical Magazine 



TO ALL BRAVE, HEALTHY, ABLE BODIED, AND 
DISPOSED YOUN(; MEN. 

IN THtS NKIGUBOUBHOOD, WHO ILWI- AW lN'CU\'ATID>r TO lOlfi THE TECKJPS, 

NOW RAISlN'fi UKDEa 

GENERAL WASHINGTON, 

roit THE DEFENCE Of THE 

LIBERTIES AND INDEPENDENCE 

OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Agaitift the Koftiie defign. *--.f foreign encmUi, 

TAKETTOTICE, 

"fir 





J £ 




Enlistment Notice. Library of Congress. 



8. You will take notice that the Colonel of the Battalion or a Field Officer to be appointed by 
him is to inspect your . . . [an)d reject such as . . . your instructions. 

We whose Names are hereto subscribed do voluntarily[in]list ourselves Soldiers or Matrosses 
to serve as such[in] the present Dispute between Great Britain and Am[erica] unless sooner 
discharged by order of the Conventi[onl C ouncil of Safety of Maryland for the time 
being ... by Subjecting ourselves to the Rules [and] Regulations as are or shall be made by the 
Convent[ion] of Maryland for regulating and governing the Forces in the Pay of the Province. 
Witness our Hands. 



Where 

Mens Names Born 

1776 James X* Corwin Dublin 

Feb'' 13 Joshua X* Miles Maryland 

Jacob X* Clark Ditto 

Henry Black Dublin 

Charles Lowe Ditto 

Michael m* Young Redding town 



Age Advance Occupation 



20 
22 
18 
38 
25 
22 



l"15-0 
1"15 -0 
1"15 0 
l"15-0 
l"15-0 
l"15-0 



Labourer 

Ditto 

Ditto 

Shoemaker 
Linen Weaver 
Labourer 



Captain &m0^nY 9€ 





Nicholas X* Johnson 


Belfast 


21 


2" 1-0 


Ditto 




Rawleigh Spinks 


Virginia 


28 


l"15-0 


Carpenter 


14 


Elick Burke 


Ireland 


25 


Z 0-0 


Labourer 


15 


James McC . . . ornt 


New York 


32 


1"15- 






Joshua X* Lovely 


null in 
England 


J 1 


1 " 1 ^ n 

1 1 J— u 


Shoewucer 




John V* Conner 


Ireland 


20 


1 15-0 


Ditto 




John ISoutn[.'J 


Maryland 


22 




Brick Maker 




Daniel X Hovey 


Dublin 


lb 


i 4-3 


Gunsmith 


16 


Charles Groome 


England 


34 


1"15 


Barber 




John Hide 


Dublin 


18 


l"15-0 


Sail maker 




Richd. X* Smith 


Maryland 


18 




•Sftip Ctrpenter 




Isaac Rawluyp] 


Ditto 


27 




Farmer 




William Bright 


Ditto 


22 




Ditto 




will A uavis 


England 


Is 


♦"IS* 




17 


Wilnam X* Brown 


Dublin 


18 




Ditto 




Patrick Nugent 


Dublin 


^0 
zz 


[entry interlined] 


reb 1 / 


James X* Brooks 


England 


ZJ 




Weaver 


19 


Mich' X* Obrien 


Ireland 


23 




T 9 hrt 1 1 f<» r 
L^aUU ur CI 




John Kennedy 


■Ditto 


t 




*&ntito 




Thomas Tranter 


Pensylv*. 


21 




Millar 

iviiiier 




jonn uicK 


England 


JO 




Taylor 




Mashack Samuel 


Pennylv". 


29 




v^nairmaKcr 




Joel Higginbottom 


Maryland 


19 




Joiner 




Jir. Radclirre 


England 


47 




Sarber 


20 


Jn . X* Martin 
John Zink 


Ditto 
Ditto 


28 

oc 

25 




Labourer 




Thomas X* Wood 


Ditto 


35 




Ditto 


21 


Darby Spellecy 


Ireland 


21 




Ropemaker 




James O* Wellst 


Ditto 


18 




Weaver 




Cornelius X*^ Donald 




34 




Labourer 




George Steward 


London 


Zt> 




Labourer 




Charles Muret 


Ditto 


26 






zJ 


rNictioias rricRetiT 


Maryland 


Jo 




Do 




Catt Connor 


Ireland 


zJ 


l"15-0 


Carpenter 




Hans Adams 


rniiaa . 


OQ 


l"15-0 


Printer 




John Malts 


Bristol 


2.1 




Labourer 


Z4 


nciiry A"^ Magen 


Ireland 


OiC 

lb 




Ditto 




Andrew Boyert 


UucKS Cty. 






Carpenter 




J onn A oi, raiiT 


I reland 


0^ 
Zj 




Labourer 


26 


Georget* Givenst 


Ditto 


20 




Ditto 




Ben W. Sheridan 


Ditto 


25 




Barber 




Lawrence Kenney 


Ditto 


24 




Taylor 


28 


Daniel Cuckley 


Ditto 


24 




Shoemaker 




Ashael Heulingst 


Philad' 


25 




Taylor 




William X* Jemmison 


Pensylv" 


18 




Labourer 




Robert C* Hill 


England 


19 




Ditto 



W>$ Mv^Awsd Histoficasl MtaOiBms 





1 nomas Carter 


Ditto 


J J 




Ditto 


Mar. 1 


John X* Gorman 


Ireland 


T7 




Ditto 


A 


John Walker 


England 


TO 




Ditto 




Jas. Magrah 


Ireland 






UlLLO 




ncii 1 y y\ Liual iigcr 


VJCI lllaliy 


"ID 




IVl ttSUIl 


A 


JL^aviu y\ rviiiacy 


\A Q v\i\ f3 nn 
ivial y lallU 


J J 




\\/p Q VP r 
Vt cti vc 1 




Micnei A Marl 


Ireland 


1^ 




Butcher 




r-Ki/ 1^ oil*/ 

uaroy Neiiy 


Ditto 


Ifs 
ZD 


1 " 1 ^ n 


LdDourcr 




Sommers 


r lllaOeip 


zz 




OavKCl 




. . . . CK a' iNortonT 


Ireland 


lA 


1 " 1 ^ n 
1 1 


Labourer 




John A* tvanie[:J 


Wales 


JD 




Sawyer 




Francis X* Stanley 


England 


2o 




^a*botirer 




Wilr' X* Carpenteart 


Ditto 


A(\ 

4U 




Ditto 


8 


Henry Ashfield 


England 


22 




Labourer 




Mark Linzly Worrallt 


Uo. 


zi 




raper[/j Maker 


11 


Leaven Deysey[?]t 


Maryland 


21 




Carpenter 




Jacob X* Bromwell 


Virginia 


^ii 




onip i-zdrpcnier 




Win A Connelly 


Ireland 


11 
12. 




Labourer 




James X' wnalmg 


Maryland 






Farmer 




#ijfni A i.^onneiiy 


Maryland 


l\ 




oiiip \^dipcnicr 




Andrew x wiuiam 


Amsterdam 


2'/ 




Labourer 




John Robinson 


Eng*. 


4v 




LlTlcO 




Tamerlane Spencer 


1 alDOt Ct'. 

Marylaiid 


ZD 




Ship Carpenter 




aunn BamzT 


Ditto 


15 




Farmer 




wium. X* HockT 


Ditto 






Ditto 




1 hos. HaleyT 


Maryland 


lift 




Farmer 


1 A 

14 


Thomas Colin 


London 






Fou#?ter 




John X' Bootman 


M aryland 






Farmer 




James Adams 


I relartd 


27 




Farmer 




James X* Crosby 


uo 


jD 




Labourer 


April oin 


oaMiuci \^arLer 


iz.ngidna 


H-Z 


1 " I S 
1 1 J— 


v^di pciiici 


1Q 

\y 


1 no A piewion 


Maryland 


Z*? 




1 alu^kUT^r 
L^aflUftl vl 


2.1 


James X* Munsel 


Ireland 


ZD 




^li/A«i iTor 

weaver 


June 6 


riar^rna V* 14 oil 

oeorge a nan 


England 


ZJ 




UlllO 


zU 


josepn A ward 


ditto 


Zj 




Ol ILNidyCl 


Z4 


Mich^ W* Landragan 


Virginia 


zl 




ditto 


July J 


Jafnes A ritiTQesiy 


Maryland 


ZJ 




L.a Dourer 


Id 


The*, Carpenter 


i::!,ngidna 


90 

Z7 




W Cd vCl 


Ann in 
Aug. lU 


John X* Lynch 


ireidnu 


97 

Z / 




f Q r^/M 1 f*>f 
L^aUU Ul CI 


25 


Spencer»fSebree 


Virginia 


26 




Taylor 


31 


James X* Taylor 


London 


23 




Plaisterer 


Sep' 10 


Solomon X* Jones 


Maryland 


17 




farmer 


16 


Wiir X* Morvall 


Flanders 


28 




Labourer 




John Lynch 


Ireland 


23 




Carpenter 


18 


Cornelius Bronlor[?] 


Maryland 


24 




Farmer 




Wm. Walker 


England 


24 




Weaver 



Captain John Fulford's Compafiy 97 



Oct' 22 


John Mellen 


Quebec 


16 


ditto 


31 


John X* Prout 


Maryland 


30 


Farmer 


Nov' 3 


Robert§ Shipley 


do 


18 


Maryland 


Dec' 29 


Tho» X* Dixon 


England 


30 


Ditto 


Oct' 29 


Dennis X* Myhan 


Ireland 


22 


Taylor 


Feb" 3 


Dan' Frazier 


Maryland 


25 


Farmer 


May 21 


Rich* Bolton 


England 


43 5 feet 


Shoemaker 



5 inches 



* his mark 

t entry is interlined but decipherable 



A List of Deserters from Capt. John Fulford's Company 



When 






deserted** 


Men's names 


Clothes etc. carried with them 


Feb''. 28 


Thomas. Trantor 




iispril'6 


Wm. Jemmisen 


Breeches 


May 30 


Francis Stanley 


Coat Jseket & Breeches & Blankett 


do 


Thos. Roberts 


Jacket Breeches & Blankett 


June 24 


John Hide 


Hunting Shirt Trousers & Breeches 


do 


Robt. Hill 


Hunting Shirt & Trousers 


Sep'. 3 


James Hardesty 


Regimentals all & Hunting Shirt & Trousers 


Oct'. 25 


Wm. Morwall 


Hunting Shirt & Trowsers 


Dec' 1 1 


Mich'. Landragan 


Jacket Breeches & Blankett 



* The year in which these desertions took place is not stated 



Elick Burk of the Second Company of Artillery Commanded by Capt. Jno. Fulford having 
for times been guilty of getting Drunk and neglected Duty I do hereby Discharge the Said 
Burk from any further Service in this Corps. 

Given under my hand and Seal at Head Quarters in Annapolis this 10 Day 
May Anno Domino 1776 

Copy Tho'. Price Major (Seal) 



REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 



The Glorious Revolution in America. By David S. Lovejoy. (New York: Mxrpiir & Row 
Publishers, 1972. Pp. 396. $15.00.) 

Say of David Lovejoy's work what Gibbon said of Belisarius: "his imperfections flowed from 
the contagation of the times; his virtues were his own." 

The first half of the work analyses the theory of a mercantile empire (a la Charles M. 
Andrews), describes its practical effect on the commerce of the pre-revolutionary societies, and 
sketches their social and economic structures in that decisive decade of imperial growing pains 
(W. F. Craven's "time of trouble"), 1675-1685. The search of Virginians, Marylanders, and 
New Yorkers for constitutional stability as a remedy for social uncertainty and economic 
exploitation is then narrated, as is the Stuart reply, the Dominion of New England (in terms 
reminiscent of V. F. Barnes). The coloniaf rebuttal was revolution, first that of Massachusetts 
and subsequently of other mainland colonies, all here reported. A two-part epilogue deailS'Wi* 
the hitherto neglected topic of colonial resistance to the Glorious Revolution, and with the 
reimposition of the imperial relationship and of the colonial ruling class during 1690. 

The virtues of this treatment are manifold. Its author insists on the complexity, the 
contradictions, of human motives. For example, Mr. Lovejoy recognizes that when John Coode 
jailed opponents of the revolution in Maryland without legal process he did so in an effort to 
establish a government limited by law. Beside'; being more complex in character, Mr. Lovejoy's 
heroes are more modest in objective than other authors have described them. He observes that 
"the Glorious Revolution in the colonies was less an attempt to kick over the traces and strive 
for a brave new world in America than it was a return to acceptsitble conditions of empire which 
colonists either had lived with or had lived for in the past." Coode's Marylanders thus set out to 
"repudiate the proprietor and fly to the Crown" thereby securing royal government and "the 
rights of Englishmen" for themselves. Not only lawful English government but also "a degree 
of self determination . . . agreeable to settlers too long denied a role in colony afNiirs, a role 
including patronage and profits" was the goal of Maryland's revolutionaries. Here, as 
elsewhere, Mr. Lovejoy argues that the incentive for the colonial rebellions was the stiffling of 
personal ambitions by the strictures of Stuart policy. Thus the dissidents demanded "an 
equitable imperial constitution, based on the 'rights of Englishmen'" which would give them 
both status and security in the empire and "a substantial degree of self-determination which 
they could put to their own good use." Insofar as the wealthy and ambitious colonists who led 
the revolts won protection for their property and a place for themselves in provincial politics, 
rtieir "revolution" was not revolutionary at all. Instead it strengthened the oligarchical 
character of colonial society and government. Once again the turbulent colonial populace 
— "moody beggars, starving for a time/of pell-mell havoc and confusion" — had changed their 
rulers but not their condition. 

The refreshing common sense of Mr. Lovejoy's conclusions is backed by his keen, if sporadic, 
ffesearch. The Blathwayt Papers of Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., for example, are used with 
unprecedented thoroughness. They provide an abundance of annecdote and analysis by the 
best-informed colonists. These were provincial officials, writing to England's colonial secretary. 
Naturally they were anglophile and courtier in attitude. Their testimony, constantly contrasted 
with that of the revolutionaries, lends Mr. Lovejoy's narrative a stimulating tension. 



9@ 



R«vi«w# ^ decent Books 99 



Unfortunately, however, only the colonial factors in the imperial equation appear, for Mr. 
Lovejoy ignores both Blathwayt's ofilcal papers in English repositories and the excellent 
biography by G. A. Jacobsen which summarizes them. 

The research assistance and conclusions of his graduate students is repeatedly acknowledged 
by Mr. Lovejoy. Theodore B. Lewis's wori< on Massachusetts and the Dominion of New 
England, and that of John Rainbolt on Virginia, are extensively used by their mentor. Even if 
their insights are not always so identified, (Rainbolt's assessment 'df tord ffowtrd of 
Effingham's absence from his governmeni of Virginia is a case in point), for the most part the 
use and citation of this talented and well directed work reflect credit on all concerned. The 
untimely death of John Rainbolt makes us all the more grateful for the reflection heft^iafllii 
wide-ranging, scholarly, and insightful studies of the Old Dominion. 

In pragmatic intelligence, in the clear exposition of balanced conclusion, in its research 
contribution, and in its use of the graduate seminar as a workshop of co-operative scholarship. 
The Glorious Revolution in America is Mr. Lovejoy's distinctly personal contribution to the 
MtSfeMwe of early American history, but his work shares "the contagation ^'^tWHrn" 

Like so many of his peers, Mr. Lovejoy focuses on what distinguished "colonists" or 
"Americans" from Englishmen. He is preoccupied with what "colonists thought about 
themselves and their relationship to England." Most colonists thought that they were English. 
Obsession with exceptional, "American," characteristics precludes consideration of prevalent 
rea#ttes. f%«s, SWftoagl* Mr. Lovejoy admits that the Glorious Revolution in America 
succeeded only insofar as it copied the means and accepted the results of its English parent — a 
military coup which replaced a Catholic, francophile, absolutist commander in chief with a 
Protestant, francophobe, constitutional monarch — he devotes his work to an assertion that 
"the revolutions in America were also an attempt by the colonists to realize a conception of 
empire based on equality between Englishmen at home and abroad." If this was their ob- 
jection, the revolutions failed. The "new" regime reminded all the colonies that they "were 
dominions of the Crown to be dealt with as the King wished, with no assurance of English- 
man'sriflrts...." 

Equality of rights is the theme of this work. It has long been Mr. Lovejoy's concern, for he 
sees the colonists' frustrating search for equal treatment in the empire as the root of American 
self-consciousness and, ultimately, of the American Revolution. But equality is a comparative 
concept. Without a thorough exposition of what it was that the colonists sought to equal, the 
ftsrce of Mr. Lovejoy's theme is diminished. Yet this work, like so much of 0ur colo«ial 
scholarship, offers sophisticated analysis, supported by manuscript research, of colonial society 
but only bald descriptions, dependent upon sparce references to a few standard accounts, of 
English developments. This imbalance in attention suggests that the author, like most 
"colonialists," still resembles his forbearers of 1690, "exceedingly wedded to their own ways, a 
very home-bred people. . . ." 

One last symptom of current academic infections appears in this work: the ascription of 
scholarly virtue to manuscript citation, even where the cited accounts have already been 
analyzed by other scholars and where conclusions identical to theirs are pre«e«te4i m tbetext. 
Mr. Lovejoy's reliance on manuscript citation to support his repetition of arguments previously 
put forward, and more broadly evidenced, by other modern scholars, leaves the reader with a 
choice of unfortunate impressions: either Mr. Lovejoy has not read most of the work of his 
colleagues in the field of early American politics and society, or he is unwilling to acknowledge 
tikmi he owes them. Specialists will not fail to note, for example, ttat lilr. L^>!i^gay V^nfysis of 
the importance of the 1696 Act of Trade echoes but does not credit Charles M. Andrews's 



WD Maryland Historical Magazine 



magisterial discussion (compare Lovejoy, p. 378, with Andrews, The Colonial Period of 
American History, IV, 258). Other readers, however, should not be left without reference to the 
literature which, the pretensions of this work notwithstanding, is st-iU iwii^nsible to an 
understanding of the Glorious Revolution in America. 

Despite its share of our academic ills. Mr. Lovejoy's woric possesses a comprehensive and 
concluding merit: it is conceived on a broad enough time scale and written out in sufficient 
detwft-«*d length to incorporate, if not always to acknowledge, many of the f!Hi»#ifs^@f a M^KJte 
generation of scholarship, as well as Mr. L ovejoy's own researches. The breadth of his canvas 
permits Mr. Lovejoy to paint the first panorama of this little known and highly debatable land. 
If all the elements of the composition do not relate to its theme, equality; if, therefore, the work 
is sometimes monographic and othertimes general, and if some of the scenes are familiar, Mr. 
Lovejoy's Fftfeim w^^eiijoy nonetheless the wealth of particular id simmiimi^s 

which he offers on the colonial crisis of llRNiajMmteenth century. 

Syracuse University Stephen Saunders Webb 



Tidewater Towns: City Planning in Colonial Virginia and Maryland. By John Reps. 
(Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1972. Distributed by the University 
Press of Virginia, Cftadette^. i?p. J«B.=frS.80.)i 

Footnotes, illustrations, and bibliography are the highlights of John Reps's Tidewater 
Towns, although the quality and cropping of many of the reproductions are cause for re- 
strained enthusiasm. The narrative is disappointing. What argument there is to the book has 
appeared before in Town Planning in Frontier America (Princeton, 1969), which itself was 
largely taken from The Making of Urban America (Princeton, 1965), and it is doubtful 
whether it was really necessary to say again in three hundred pages what had been well put in 
forty. 

There is no question that Reps has uncovered a large number of town plans, although there 
are others such as "Ogle Town" in Maryland that for one reason or another he neglected to 
record. The problem with his work is that with the exception of Williamsburg he knows the 
towns he describes only superficially and as a result misses significant developments (or the lack 
fftefeOf^ iti town planning that were important aspects of urban growt"h 'iit tfie Ghesapealce. F'or 
example he spends one whole chapter on .Annapolis yet never mentions that most of the 
property was developed, not in the nice neat lots that show on the Stoddert map he reproduces, 
but according to simple or ground rent leases that produced an entirely different pattern of land 
use. Nicholson's design was definitely a factor in determining the shape of some of the lots, but 
the timing of their development and the character of the building that took place on them was 
directly related to the nature of opportunity and pace of economic growth in the town. For 
example, contrary to Reps's assertion, Annapolis did not suddenly decline after the Revolution, 
(p. 13i) te me«!tl*W« Tjrospe*erf gre^, If briefly, after the wsfr, emi'Hing^ them to place tWeir 
own imprint on the town's physical development. The war ended the building of gracious 
townhouses, but the erection of what might today be called middle and lower income housing 
grew apace between 1783 and 1793 on lots leased on ground rents from a number of the more 
'vmpmimi merchants and other affluent citizens, Although in 1770 a merchant, Charles 
W«fte'(», t>eta« te«iftg Ms#di« ftis large tracf Wttirt^itt farrfr0rt1^*te CiW^t0#e ttarbor, 



^titltmmm^^litmmf'Bmks 101 



a majority of the first houses on them were built in the ten years after 1783 by laborers and 
minor craftsmen. Except for the earliest of town designers such as Nicholson, Reps never 
mentions entrepreneurs like Wallace and ignores a whole dimension of town planning that 
should be an integral part of any such study of the Chesapeake. 

Annapolis, of course, is not the only town discussed by Reps, although about ten percent of 
his text is devoted to it, but the same absence of any discussion of the timing, and often the 
factors, affecting private and public town planning is evident throughout Tidewater Towns. 
Perhaps it would have been more helpful if Reps had simply provided an annotated bibliog- 
raphy of town maps and plans. Such a volume or volumes, profusely illustrated, would have 
been a remarkable and useful contribution to urban history and the history of the Chesapeake. 
Reps chose to do otherwise and as a consequence it is not as easy as it might have been to 
derive maximum benefit from his obviously extensive knowledge of the sources for city 
planning in colonial Vii^inia and Maryland. 

Maryland Hall of Records Edward C. Papenfuse 



Political Parties before the Constitution. By Jackson Turner Main. (Chapel Hill: University of 
North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1973. Pp. xx, 
481. $15.95.) 

In this study of political activity prior to the Constitution, Professor Main argues that the 
politics of the period were neither chaotic nor constituted exclusively of factions. While 
conceding that great variety characterized the political history of the thirteen states during the 
1780s and that each experienced a separate development, he contends that they faced many 
identical problems which stimulated similar responses. The most notable of these was the 
emergence in each state of two major, opposing political blocs — labeled Cosmopolitans and 
Localists — which habitually confronted each other on most of the major issues of the 
Confederation. These issues and their accompanying tensions culminated with the ratification 
of the Federal Constitution. Its adoption involved the great questions over which the competing 
blocs had divided — relations between the states and Congress, public debt, taxes, paper money, 
slavery, land policy, the court system, and a host of others — and constituted the bitterest of all 
Hfhe struggles. While not central to his study, Main indicates that these divisions continued into 
the early national period with Cosmopolitans becoming Federalists and Localists becoming 
Jeffersonian Republicans. 

With the aid of a computer Main analyzed roll call votes in all the state legislatures; this 
enabled him to identify the two major blocs in each state and to note that the parties in each 
state shared characteristics with those of others and divided on the same issues. Having 
established these legislative blocs, he searched for biographical information on the individual 
legislators constituting the parties. The core of his analysis involved information on 1,503 
legislators in seven states and 1,500 roll calls. The information derived from the biographical 
data, when correlated with bloc affiliation, together with the analysis of voting behavior 
produced a general interpretation of political alignments before the Constitution. 

Fully realizing that to summarize is to do injury to the complexity and detail of this work, a 
summation is nonetheless all that can be attempted. Briefly stated. Main contends that the 
ptiiMKey40^imimit»''^*ti individual's adherei^4@#ttM:stoiRi»ei#raM Ms residence (or the 



1.02 Maryland H^toricsi MwgmUm 



nature of his constituency), occupation, wealth, and world view. Cosmopolitans represented 
above all the towns and commercial farming areas; most were engaged in occupations other 
than farming, were relatively more wealthy, and held a more sophisticated world view than their 
opponents. For their part, Localists were overwhelmingly small property holders, engaged in 
farming, and possessed of a provincial world view. 

Main holds that once the composition of the separate legislative parties is clearly understood, 
"their attitudes toward the issues of the day are seen to form a logical, consistent whole, and the 
patterns made by their voting becomes natural, if not indeed inevitable." (p. 392) Following the 
Revolution the agrarian-localists attempted to curb government costs because they benefited 
very little from such expenditures: they held few offices and few certificates, and for the most 
part took care of their own needs themselves and thus asked only to be left alone. Therefore, 
they bitterly resented paying taxes on land or other necessities; indeed they believed that if other 
people wanted the government to spend money, they should tax themselves. Representing small 
property holders from relatively poor communities, always short of money, Localists favored 
debtor relief and a more plentiful supply of money at low interest rates. They opposed banks 
and other desires of urban businessmen and resisted the return of well-to-do loyalists for fear 
they might support the other side. They exhibited a narrow-mindedness compounded of 
antiloyalist and anti-British prejudice, a skepticism about state-supported colleges, a reluctance 
to obey the British treaty, and an unwillingness to grant power to Congress to form a strong 
central government. Main contends that Localists trusted only themselves and therefore be- 
lieved in a simple democracy where they could regulate their own affairs without external in- 
terference from groups they perceived as hostile and very likely corrupt outsiders. 

In the mind of the commercial-cosmopolitans, "almost everything that governments did was 
beneficial as long as they themselves exercised power — as, in one way or another, they generally 
could." (p. 395) They favored payment of the public debt, both because they- Fteeiv*A the 
interest and principal and because they believed in the credit, solvency, and good reputation of 
government. In addition, they benefited from and recognized the reason for competent officials 
with good salaries, the establishment of courts, the improvement of transportation, government 
aid to economic growth and a stable monetary system, as well as government responsibility for 
order and stability. They happily consented to pay money for these benefits, but insisted- that 
everyone else do the same through the prompt payment of taxes which they imposed. In 
addition, private obligations should be held as sacred as public ones. These men and their 
constituents believed in the authority of government, supported Congress, and therefore voted 
nearly unanimously in favor of the Constitution. Being urbane men of broad views, 
Cosmopolitans easily forgave Loyalists, supported colleges, and favored the economic and 
cultural growth of towns. "The kind of democracy advocated by the other side they regarded as 
menacing, because it meant government by narrow men, who possessed little or no property, 
were unfit to rule, and really sought no government at aU." (p. 395) 

Main's book represents a skillful blending of computer techniques with traditional 
methodology; each reinforces the other and strengthens the final result. The book provides an 
example of the solid research necessary if social history is to be meaningful and if scholars are 
to determine the relationship between "rhetoric" and "reality." More specifically. Main's 
reseSTTch indicates that the first American party system adapted to and mo«Hli«d pfe^xisteBt 
state blocs rather than arising within Congress and eventually spreading to the states. In 
addition, he reveals that parlies possessed unifying ideologies or interests and that their 



Remmvs of Recent Books 103 



members sought power not for its own sake but to accomplish specific aims. In sum. Main has 
written an impressive work. 

University of Oklahoma RoHBrr fe iHAtHOPE 



I Maryland: The Federalist Years. By L. Marx RenzuUi, Jr. (Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickin- 

son University Press, f97l. Pp. xvi, 354. $15.00.) 

I 

I Both the scholarly community and the general reading public have long needed a solid, 

comprehensive monograph covering the Federalist period in Maryland. L. Marx RenzuUi has 
filled the void with a thoroughly researched, balanced, and detailed political history of 
Maryland in the years between Confederation and the Era of Good Feelings. 

One has the distinct feeling that no appropriate manuscript collection escaped him and that 
he was equally at home in the newspaper and broadside collections of the Maryland Historical 
Society. The work is impeccably researched in terms of primary source material. One of the 
great strengths of RenzuUi's work is that he avoids one of the dangers common to all who work 
in the field of Maryland history: the Baltimore-Annapolis syndrome. The history of the 
Federalist era in Maryland was not confined to the two great political and cultural centers of 
the state, as RenzuUi ably demonstrates in his treatment of the strength of the party in rural 
western Maryland, the politics of the division between the "PotdMltc faction" and the 
Chesapeake alignment, and the anti-urban tendencies of the party. 

There are only a few minor omissions, the most notable being the failure in the final three 

, chapters of the work really to come to grips with the controversy created by David H. Fischer's 

contentions regarding the political renaissance engineered by the younger Federalists in 
Maryland after 1801. RenzuUi does suggest in the final pages that the party would "not 
adopt the devices of mass political organization so successfully used by the Republican op- 
position." 

AU in all, however, it is a needed work and the task has been carried off well. RenzuUi 
I captures the essential nature of Maryland Federalism — the Messianic complex of the party, the 

ftct that it functioned most ably in times of economic crisis and social dislocation, its inability 
to react to constructive opposition, and the cons^^tive fjhilospphy which prevented it from 
I making peace with the nineteenth century. 

Towson State College Joseph W. Cox 



Seeds of Extinction, Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian. By Bernard W. 
v^«ehan. (Chapel Hiffl: The- University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early 
American History and Culture, 1972. Pp. ix, 301. $11.95.) 

This 4» tftii it book alsout Iwdlims. Rather, the unique contribution of Sheehan's book lies in 
its explication of the sources and motivations which underlay the early nineteenth century 
Jeffersonians' perceptions of the Indian and determined their views on government Indian 



104 Maryland Hisld#^«i||i|ilMH»« 



policy. As the author phrases it, he has set out to explain "how the white American's conception 
of himself and his position on the continent formed his perception of the Indian and directed his 
selection of policy towards thenativetribes."(p'x) 

The book is conceived in three parts: Metaphysics, Program, and Illusions. "Metaphysics" 
concerns the conceptual framework which Western European Man erected to explain the 
presence of man in the New World. This first part surveys the philosophical assumptions that 
encompassed the problem of the Indian's origins, his deficiencies, the concept of the Noble 
Savage, and the effects of environmentalism on the Indian. According to Sheehan, it was the 
Jeffersonians' assumptions about environmental effects that proved most important in their 
grappling with what they saw as the "Indian problem"; in their view, environmentafesB 
cardinal importance in the transformation of the "savage" into civilized man. 

How the Jeffersonians set about to accomplish this transformation is the subject of the 
second part, "Program." In the period between the Revolution and the late 1820s, 
transformation or incorporation, as Sheehan terms the process, was the driving force behind 
government Indian policy which either directed benevolent activities or set up the rules under 
which philanthropic organizations operated. As Sheehan amply demonstrates, the complexity 
of the problem of transforming diverse Indian cultures into the Western European pattern was 
never fully realized by the Jeffersonians, who tended to see incorporation only as a natural 
process dictated by natural laws. Convinced of the certainty of social evolution, the 
Jeffersonians launched their melioristic programs with a great deal of enthusiasm. While 
education and religion served as the main agents in change, they did not ignore bribery and 
other forms of manipulation in their haste to move the Indian from "savagery" to civilization. 

The logic of the book's structure requires that part three, entitled "Illusions," depict the 
decline of the Jeffersonians' ideals, and so it does. The realities of culture change did not mesh 
with the Jeffersonians' perceptions of what ought to be. Violence (on both sides) and the 
disintegration of Indian cultures shattered the illusions of many Jeffersonian philanthropists. 
As Sheehan sees it, political expediency, economic factors, and a more realistic appraisal of the 
situation resulted in growing support for Indian removal by 1830. Even the many philanthro- 
pists who had earlier opposed removal were advocating it by the late 1820s as the only means to 
keep alive their illusions of converting the Indian into a white man. So tenacious was the dream 
that many Jeffersonians felt that only more time was necessary for the transformation to be 
completed. 

While Sheehan's book goes far in expanding our understanding of this period's views of the 
Indian, especially in regard to the problem of removal, there are some weaknesses. The 
structure lends itself to a "rise and fall" interpretation of the missionary and educational efforts 
of philanthropists. In "Metaphysics" Sheehan correctly notes the close relationship between 
environmentalism and monogenism, but contrary to his implication, this relationship did not 
preclude the polygenists from at times also using environmentalism to support their arguments. 
While environmentalism was a widely held concept, it does not necessarily follow that 
monogenism also was. Sheehan's reference to "the universalizing tendency of an age that 
considered the unity of mankind axiomatic" (p. 46) is misleading, for the unity of man was not 
so general a belief as Sheehan assumes. Certainly by the late 1820s monogenism was coming 
under heavy attack by polygenists. Some of the sources which Sheehan quotes in substantiation 
of the broad acceptance of this belief produced their arguments in defense of the disputed 
concept of monogenism. One might wonder if there was not also a polygenetic Indian 
philanthropy and how it diflisrad '0m ifeWiigfy monogenetic philanthropy of the 

Jeffersonians. 



Revfews of Recent Books 1 05 



Two topics covered too briefly by Sheehan are philology and mound archaeology. While he 
brings both into his discussion of attempts to determine the origins of the Indian, he overlooks 
their significance in raising questions on the unity of man and on the capability of the Indian to 
progress to civilization. For many eighteenth century thinkers, whether or not the Indian could 
progress was still very much an open question. One theory held that the Indian had actually 
degenerated from a higher level of civilization and that this process of degeneration was 
irreversible. While aware of this interpretation, which he variously terms "decline" or 
"declension," Sheehan does not really clarify when "decline" refers to deg^i^ation (the 
irreversible decline from a higher state) and when to the declension in Indian cultures resulting 
from the contact situation. 

Sheehan demonstrates a thorough knowledge of his sources, but there are times when he 
might have questioned them more closely. For example, he seems to accept at face value J. 
Hector St. John de Crevecoeur's praise of Indian custom and society, but he does not explore 
the reason for Crevecoeur's praise or question whether it was issued in a propagandistic vein. 

In spite of these minor weaknesses, I find that Sheehan has written a basically sound, 
valuable book, Seeds of Extinction will certainly be indispensibte to anyone attempting to 
dfscover tlte fafionMS l^ftii early government policy deriving fiUtt Jeffer'sCttian thought. 

Center for the History of the American Indian, Robert E. BitDER 

The Newberry Library 



Anne Royall's U.S.A. By Bessie Rowland James. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University 
Press, 1972. Pp. viii, 447. $15.00.) 

Anne Roy all (1769 1854) did not approve of strenuous abolitionists, the bloomer costume, or 
women's suffrage advocacy. In such ways she was a conventional woman of her time. But she 
possessed none of the idealized virtues of womanhood listed by historian Barbara Welter: 
purity, piety, domesticity, and submissiveness. She is interesting now because she was 
exceptional, and 'Bessid'Ro^ratraJifmes's biography, whtcft fs dtescf iptive rather than analytical, 
provides the necessary material for appreciation of her life. 

Born in Baltimore, Anne Newport grew up on the frontier in Pennsylvania and Virginia and 
was supported by tofflre^ftr, a house servant twice widowed. At age twenty<4ij|ht, after living 
in his house and acquiring from him a taste for books, she married Williawi Royalt. He was 
about twenty-five years older, possessed of some wealth by inheritance, a tobacco planter, and 
an alcoholic. After his death in 1812, his family broke his will and she was left with no 
inheritance. At forty-three she was on her own. She continually sought a government pension as 
(te'iiH<3«* aft Re*o*utit(fiaty Wiar dfifdW, »« sffef*feeh^ (tWfting until she was seventy-nine. 
In the meantime she made her own way, not to wealth but to prominence and independence. 

For years after her husband's death she toured America, wrote accounts of her travels, and 
promoted the sale of her own books. She led a difficult and dangerous life in these years. She 
was twice seriously assulted by men who had taken offense at her verbal abuse. Most especially 
She contended wfth evangelitaTs. She Castigated anti-masons and said repeatedly that 
evangelical ministers were mercenary bigots. She was once convicted and fined for being a 
"common scold." A minister had set up prayer meetings in front of her residence, seeking her 
d^werance, and she eoiwHSttted a legal offense when in her anger she called him "a damned old 
bald-headed son of a bitch." 



'WM Maryland Historical Magi^ine 



Having spent much time in Washington after 1812, and knowing personally the major 
political figures, in 1831 she began a weekly journal of opinion, a venture that continued for 
over twenty years (called Paul Pry until 1836 and then The Huntress). Her main concerns, in 
addition to evangelicals, were political corruption and preservation of the Union. She criticized 
the Jacksonians, and later the Free-Soilers, as politicians dedicated to office-holding rather 
than to policies. She praised Henry Clay for conceiving the Compromise of 1850. 

Throughout her journalistic career she was an imposing figure, as even the President of the 
United States, John Quincy Adams, had recognized when in 1827 he wrote about her in his 
diary: "Mrs. Royall . . . continues to make herself noxious to many persons, tolerated by some 
and feared by others; by her deportment and her books; treating all with a familiarity which 
often passes for impudence, insulting those who treat her with incivility, and then lampooning 
them in her books. Stripped of all her sex's delicacy, but unable to forfeit its privilege of gentle 
tf^itment from the other, she goes about like a virago errant in enchanted armor, and redeems 
herself from the cravings of indigence by the notoreity of her eccentricities and the forced 
currency they give to her publications." 

Despite the bad humor in the particular remark, Adams really liked her. It is apparent, 
however, that her deviation from accepted womanly behavior perplexed him. Perhaps he had 
forgotten that many years before, in 1786, he had complained to his mother that pretty girls 
were too often foolish and "like the beautiful apple that is insipid or disgusting to the taste." 
Adams might have had difficulty in defining precisely proper womanly deportment. Fortu- 
nately for her Anne Royall never worried about such matters. 

Towson Slate College Fred M. Rivers 



The Slave Community: Plantation Life m ^ Antebellum South. By John W. Blassingame. 
(New York; Oxford University Press, 1972. Pp. xv, 262. $7.95.) 

Many historians studying American slavery have complained about the lack of information 
as to what the sitVes themselves thought about slavery, and yet, at the time t^ey ifia^ these 
complaints, some five thousand autobiographical narratives, written or dictated by slaves, were 
to be found in libraries. Part of the reason for the ignoring of these sources, as Mr. Blassingame 
points out, was the belief that the slave, "as the primary sufferer in the institution, was unable to 
give an objective account of bondage"; but the author also states the obvious fact that few, if 
any, individuals "are able to give completely objective accounts of things and persons with 
whom they were associated intimately." 

Bias and subjectivity are constant characteristics of all historical sources, and the task of the 
Ws^isBisH ^ *^ry is t%trse^'>jhe *^ts commonly applied to historical documents" on these 
narratives, not to reject them in toto. The author also has read widely in psychological 
literature, and uses the insights gained (oftentimes effectively, as even a prejudiced critic is 
reluctantly forced to admit)#f.« jgi^rtis of setting forth teflia|i*e»ei^tenations of the actions and 
thoughts of the slaves. 

The result is a viable description <Jf Slavery as experienced by the slave that occasionally is 

sharply corrective of previous writers, but which, on the whole, confirms the findings of these 
few historians who have tried to describe the lives and experiences of the slaves using the same 
and other sotrrccs. 



R«tfi«ws of Recent Books 107 



One weakness in the book is a tendency to present particular circumstances and events as 
general truths, a fault perhaps brought on by his title, which seems to imply that plantations in 
the antebellum South essentially were all alil<e and that there was a single slave community. 
This, to some degree, was true. All slaves, throughout the two centuries and a half the 
institution endured, experienced harassment, mistreatment, even cruelty and persecution, by 
whites, but nevertheless their situation differed depending on a wide variety Of drretiitistintces. 
Small farms, with few slaves, growing a wide variety of crops in the mountain valleys and the 
Lexington and Nashville basins, were not the same as the large cotton, rice, and sugar 
plantations, and blacks in the long settled areas of Maryland, Virginia, ItWd of the 

Carolinas had a different experience from those in the later opened areas. 

The author does not entirely ignore these differences. His interest, however, is on other 
phases of the story, on such matters as African cultural survivals, family life, and the slaves' 
patterns of behavior; and in regard to these, he has supplied much useful information and some 
new interpretations. 

University of Oregon Thomas P. Govan 



Radical Abolitionism: Anarchy and the Government of God in Antislavery Thought. By Lewis 
Perry. (Cornell \Mm>eMf'9ttm Ithaca and London, 197S. x*i, 32t. $14.50.) 

Not so long ago, abolitionism was a fashionable, inspired topic for historical ittquiry. Lilce 
the Civil Rights movement that lent it special meaning, antislavery studies have seen better 
days. Yet, the declension from high academic favor is not a total loss. The field is now clear 
from the debris of "relevance," particularly for the scholar with an abiding sense of the integrity 
and unmalleable nature of past events. One of these rare spirits is Lewis Perry. Radical 
Abolitionism wffl tiot awaken flagging reform hopes, much as reinspirStion is Beeiiecl, bfflt the 
work has more to say about the religiou^ premises, tensions, and confusions within the white 
abohtionist movement than most of the historical outpourings of the 1960s. 

Perry discovers three central ideas behind the anarchistic impulse of radical reformers: 
the sovereignty of God, the millennial promise, and the moral government of God. This theo- 
logical trinity was at war with slavery because abolitionists believed that southern slave owner- 
ship signified evil rebellion against God's masterhood over all men; insured the postponement 
of a new Earth under divine rule; and finally, represented an obstacle to the moral government 
that God intended fw hfitman, particularly American embrace. As a resiJlt awtisltvery was 
more than an attempt to free slaves. It was a mechanism for the self-liberation of abolitionists 
from the shackles of sin, an aim granting southern blacks little role to play. Moreover, the re- 
formers' arrogation of divine command (the prophet's insistent claim) not only alienated them 
from mediational institutions — especially the church and state — but inevitably led to an ex- 
plosion of idiosyncratic revelations about God's ultimate designs. Thus, Perry uses anarchy in a 
double sense: as a term defining the abolitionists' hopes for a purified, godly world, free of the 
compromises with sin in ordinary institutional and social relations; and as the general chaos of 
contradictory ideas about the nature of man and God that this vision engender€^. 

Perry concentrates upon the tortuous disputes that separated religious radicals — Garrisoni- 
atis and Liberty party activists; non-resisters and no-organization men; pacifist communitarians 
and violent antinomians. Each group (and tlwre were other ones as well) conceived the new 



t06 Maryland Historical Magazine 



Utopia in rather antithetical ways, generally without much awareness of internal ambiguities 
but with sharp critical insight about the faults of opponents. For instance, Nathaniel Rogers, 
one of the most fascinating thinlcers in the movement, sought complete freedom in all relations, 
even with God Himself, but his logic, though stressing the dynamics of words as a form of 
action, allowed no practical means for other kinds of routine agitation. Yet, Rogers's position 
msfeled him to see clearly the limitations of military or legal emanciplrtMl; itawion uiwkr 
such circumstances, he advised, would simply create "free niggers" unless white nwii's hearts 
were also transformed. 

A short review can scarcely do justice to the strange and iHtricate threads of romantic 
thought that Perry unravels with such impressive mastery. Tw® isxamples of his insights must 
suffice. The author furnishes evidence of a lower-class "come-outerism" in the factories of 
Lynn, Massachusetts, a millennial vision reminiscent of the Reformation peasant movements 
as Norman Cohn described them. Second, the author sees the Liberty party as an experiment in 
moriri :goverimi€!m tlti'o^h fttrltsan activity, a basically religious effort with which Garrisonian 
"come-outers" had more in common than they would ever admit. Yet, there are problems, too. 
First, anarchy as the guiding theme was ill-chosen. The word has acquired meanings that the 
author is compelled to strip away. Probably the world "antinomianism," which is theologically 
and psychologically more appropriate to the nature of root-and-branch radicalism, would have 
provided him wkfi a concept of an evolutionary character. It cmH have covered all the factions 
and still encompassed specifically anarchistic ideas. A result would have been the better 
integration of such peculiarities as spirit-rapping and sexual experimentation into the structure 
of the work as a whole. Also, Perry might well have examined in some detail the conservative 
millennialists of the era as a means of comparison with his radical visionaries. (Ernest 
Sandeen's Roots of Fundamentalism (1970) that so brilliantly analyses the dispensationalists 
may not, however, have been available for Perry's use.) These are not damaging complaints. 
Radical Abolitionism shares the laurels of penetrating scholarship with Aileen Kraditor's 
Means and Ends in American Abol^m^^, the only other work to treat abolitionist thought 
with the seriousness it deserves. At last we can grasp the meaning of the crusade, not merely as a 
forerunner for modern racial efforts but as a cause with the desperation, zeal, and mystery that 
belong to all movements that arise, define an age, and then recede, leaving traces faint and lively 
and legacies both unrecoverable and contemporaneous. 

Case Western Reserve University Bertram Wyatt-Brown 



Memoirs of a Swiss Officer in the American Civil War, Edited and introduced by Heinz K, 
Meier. (Bern and Frankfurt: Herbert Lang, 1972. Pp. 183.) 

Both the number and scope of publications regarding Swiss participation in the American 
Ci^l War liave -been sca«t. Above fte company level flWly a siwgie orgaiMzatioB, the Fifteenth 
Missouri regiment (Swiss Rifles), w^.pi^ikmiiiiantly Swiss. Writings on this unit are almost 
non-existent; the same applies to other units with a heavy concentration of Swiss, such as the 
Garibaldi Guard and the Ninth New York Militia. Other writings by Swiss participants are also 
nicager. Only a few have been published in the United States, such as the reminiscences of 
EfwJI Prey, later president of the Swiss Confederation, M the Morth Ameriem k^vtew. 

Thus the translation of Rudolf Aschmann's 1865 DrieJahre in der Potomac-Armee oder eine 



Hm^^^tim '«# Recent Books 



109 



Schweizer Schutzen-Compagnie im nordamerikanischen Kriege is a genuine contribution to the 
literature of foreign participation in the war. Young Aschmann, a native of the Laice of Zur- 
ich region, had migrated to the United States by 1861, for reasons the editor was unable to 
discern. 

In 1861 Aschmann signed up as a volunteer in a special outfit recruited in New York, the 
famed Berdan's First U. S. Sharpshooters. He later explained that his commitment to the war 
was motivated by concern for the slavery issue. Perhaps as well, he viewed the war as a 
potentially exciting experience. He recalled that "we Swiss especially were under the illusion 
that this struggle would be like the Sonderbundskrieg. We thought it wouW'%c 0f jfteuttfttratfeSti 
and laurels could be easily won." 

Aschmann was soon disillusioned, and his narrative is an account of war weariness, horror at 
{he carnage he witnessed, and weariness at the drudgery of daily soldierly life. From the 
summer of 1861 to the siege of Petersburg in 1865. Aschmann served with the sharpshooters. 

Although the book is a contribution to Civil War writing, it does contain two faults. One is 
the style of Aschmann's writing. He wrote for Swiss readers, and sought to incorporate into his 
own reminiscences a general history of campaigns. Hence more interesting personal matters are 
sacrificed to rather tedious accounts of battles which could be garnered in any general history. 
Also, it is unfortunate that the editor could not have included more information on Aschmann 
in his introduction. Such factors as his background in Switzerland, the time of and motives for 
his coming to the United States, his personality and physical appearance — all would have 
provided a better background to the narrative. 

Utiimrnkf ^ Smith Carolim Tmom as i. CcmNE lly 



Invisible Immigrants: The Adaptation of English and Scottish Immigrants in Nineteenth-Cen- 
tury America. By Charlotte Erickson. (Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press, 
1972. Pp. vii, 531, $17,50,) 

Charlotte Erickson, Senior Lecturer in Economic History at the London School of 
Economics and author of American Industry and the European Immigrant, 1865-85, has with 
this volume made yet another important contribution to American immigration history. 
Erickson's "Invisible Immigrants" are ordinary Englishmen and Scots who heretofore had 
been recorded only in the immigration statistics of the nineteenth century. Through this 
•eoUection of their letters supported by meticulous research on the background in Britain and the 
United States, the author has rendered several score of them as visible, full-bodied persons, 
Erickson's exhaustive examination of private emigrant letters, which goes much beyond those 
reprinted here, has enabled her to test the generalizations of immigration history against the 
actual experiences of particular individuals. 

The bulk of the volume is devoted to family correspondence between members fH Aniperica 
and their kin in Britain. Unlike many "America letters" these were private letters, not intended 
for publication. Thus they express the intimate concerns of ordinary persons, rather than 
propaganda statements for or against emigration written by publicists. These letters, rich in 
details of everyday life and in wtpreasifflBS »9f mmmigmmt attitudes, are a valuable source for 
social history. 

Invisible Immigrants, however, is much more than another collection of "America letters." 



Maryland Historical Magazine 



In her commentary, Erickson provides a penetrating analysis of the processes of migration and 
adaptation of British immigrants to nineieenth-century America. The author divided the 
volume into three parts according to the American occupations of the immigrants; argiculture; 
industry; and professional, commercial, and clerical occupations. Considering the motives for 
emigration, the networks of distribution, and the economic and social adjustment for each of 
these categories, she found significant differences among the three groups. 

The majority of the British who came prior to 1 850 turned to agriculture for their livelihood. 
Seeking a way of life rather than quick economic success, they were drawn to the lands of the 
Old Northwest. Those who moved from farming in Great Britain to farming in fhetJHited 
States, Erickson noted, had the best chance of realizing a satisfactory adjustment, both 
economic and social. Craftsmen and tradesmen, on the other hand, inspired by the agrarian 
myth but unprepared for farming, often met with failure and returned to urban pursuits. The 
author, however, argues that the dream of rural independence in America served 4s a safety 
valve against urban and industrial discontent in England. Erickson concludes fhat the private 
letter, rather than immigrant recruitment agencies, was the principal source of information 
while the family network provided the principal means of distribution of British immigrants to 
the agricultural regions. 

A paucity of letters from the second half of the nineteenth century and from msnttfactufing 
centers hampered Erickson's research on industrial immigrants. Her collections are more 
typical of "tramping artisans" who brought pre-industrial skills with them to the United Stales. 
Indeed, these letters provide excellent evidence for Herbert Outman's thesis that traditional 
artisan wotk h«Wts and attitudes persisted in industrializing America. A quest for modest 
economic improvement, rather than dire poverty, motivated the emigration of these workmen. 
Unlike the agriculturists, the immigrants in industry were more likely to be single men, many of 
whom eventually returned to Britain. Thus the British emigration prefigured a pattern of 
repatriation once thought peculiar to the "new immigration." Less tied to family, the industrial 
immigrants still relied upon a network of relatives as well as workmales tt) find etwployment. 
British workers concentrated in particular industries such as mining and textiles, forming dense 
immigrant communities. Unfortunately few letters have survived which illustrate this phase of 
the immigration. 

Part II I on immigrants in professional, commercial, and clerical occupations is entitled "The 
Uprooted," These white-collar workers, Erickson found, were more likely to make a complete 
break with family, friends, and previous occupation. F.migrating for personal reasons, often a 
family quarrel, they tended to have high ambitions for social status and achievement. Although 
in social origins not unlike the farmers and skilled workers, they were dMmgw^ed by eareers 
of extreme geographic and social mobility. Dependent on neither family nor trade network, 
they were more completely incorporated into American society. Yet Erickson concludes that 
this group was not outstanding in economic success and experienced an unsatisfactory social 
adaptation. Indeed, this series of letters is the most tragic in the volume, reflective of lives 
Irfftaldtey alienation and conflict, A large proporttdn ef'Wi'ese-wtiKD'Colter worters spent their 
'te piUfS as lonely, destitute old men. 

Erickson's work demolishes the myth, previously challenged by Rowland Berthoff, that 
Englishmen and Scots were unlike other immigrants. In their own words, they made it clear 
that they felt themselves to be "strangers in a strange land.". Rather than a quick and easy 
assimilation, the author describes the British experience as one of accomodation within their 
own ethnic communities. For them as for others, the immigrant community made "the 
migration experience bearable for the mass of immigrants." Except for those who were isolated 



Reviews of Recent Books 



from family and friends, Erickson did not find evidence in the letters of "tragic personal 
disorientation." 

This volume, rich in seasoned scholarship and dense with the stuff of human experience, is 
particularly welcome at a time when so much work in social history has a hasty, 1M<, IM 
orae-denmwsiiiid i^lity t@ it. 

Center for Immigration Studies. Rudolph J. Vecoli 

University of Minnesota 

John Dos Passos' Path to USA: A Political Biography. 1912-1936. By Melvin Landsberg. 
(Boulder. Colorado Assoaated University Press, 1973. Pp. 392. $10.00.) 

There is no important divergence of opinion about John Dos Passos's stature in the literary 
history of the United States in the Twentieth Century. It is monumental. To borrow a meta- 
phor from sub-atomic physics, he, with Faulkner and Hemingway, knocked the American 
novel into a new orbit, releasing a terrific burst of energy mllMeasoflirriters of lesser, but still 
impressive intellectual size. 

But the significance of a feat of such magnitude is never immediately apparent, for the dust 
of controversy obscures it, often for years and sometimes for generations. John Dos Passos 
died on September 28, 1970, so while it is clear that he belongs in the Pantheon, his precise 
location there will not be decided for a long time to come. 

This is clearly understood by Professor Landsberg (he is an associate professor of English at 
the University of Kansas), so he has not attempted a definitive biography, but merely a study 
of one phase of his subject's life, his political development, which Landsberg is sure culminated 
in the three riovels. The 42nd Parallel, Nineteen Nineteen, and The Big Money, subsequently 
published in one volame under the title U.S.A. This trilogy is, hi Landsberg's opinion, the 
masterpiece on whi^ ©®8 Passos's fame will hinge. 

Perhaps so — as respects the literary artist, one dare say almost certainly so. But by this 
same account the trilogy itself traces the metamorphosis of a rather far-out radiiesfl' mte a 
moderate conservative. Granting that Dos Passos, the artist, produced nothing surpassing 
U.S.A., the fact remains that Dos Passos, the political philosopher, afterward wrote a study 
of democratic theory. The Head and Heart of Thomas Jefferson, that, although t»o fliHi^ 
neglected, is in its own genre as masterly as his best fiction. 

'W^Wti* Ms self-imposed limits, however, Landsberg is highly pte»s#ilc, and if he had made 
his title "John Dos Passos Through U.S.A." he would have been invulnerable. He had the 
advantage of long conversations with Dos Passos during his last years in Baltimore, and Lands- 
berg's assertion that his subject considered himself always more Veblenite than Marxian may 
be accepted as authoritative. The trilogy is, in fact, a record of the progression of a completely 
honest, but originally highly opinionated man, into tolerance of a woefully imperfect world. 

His utter loathing of Woodrow Wilson, expressed in Nineteen Nineteen, is explicable by the 
fact that they were so much alike in their common obsession with the belief that truth is a unity 
hmeMi of a conjunction of positive and negative, expressed in oriental philosophy ^ '0i and 
yang and in western science by Bohr's mathematical theory with the tongue-twisting name of 
"complementarity," which admits the possibility of the positron and anti-matter as aspects 
of truth. 

Undoubtedly, Landsberg is right in asserting that the trilogy is the most vivid and accurate 



112 M aryiiwi'liili^tea i li i ii i iiiiw 



picture that we have of a critical period in the history of the republic and so will retain lasting 
value as a historical document. Yet one may venture the guess that as a record of the way in 
which the relentless pressure of its own honesty forced a powerful intelligence out of an ob- 
session with dogma and into a closer touch with reality, it will retain its fascination when the 
political bistorx of our time has lost all but antiquarian interest. 

Baltimore Gerald W. Johnson 



Ceramics in America. Edited by Ian M. G. Quimby. (Charlottesville: The University Press of 
Virginia for the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1973. Pp. xii, 374. $4.50.) 

These essays were presented at the Eighteenth Annual Winterthur Conference in March 
1972, its purpose being to investigate the "cultural information with which all ceramic objects 
are invested." Bernard L. Fontana said in the keynote address that we have not yet "cracked 
the code" of the "language of man-made objects." Fontana's statement is particularly true 
for ceramics. The vast majority of ceramic books have been written for the collector and are 
usually descriptive accounts of artistic and non-utilitarian ceramics. The common ceramic ob- 
ject, and the one of greatest cultural information, has been used, broken, and discarded and is 
certainly not "collectable" in the normal sense. Because of this the ability to interpret these 
artifacts as social documents has been dependent upon the advance of American historical 
archaeology, a development which is only recent. Much of the strength of this volume is based 
upon the use of recent finds in such excavations which are revolutionizing the methods of view- 
ing the common ceramic utensil. Ivor Noel Hume, America's premier archaeological ceramist 
and a contributor, noted that "the study of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ceramics is 
still in its infancy," and even with a gfe«tt amount of new archaeological data "our knowledge 
is but a drop in the bucket." 

There are three types of articles in the report. Several center tboW English and American 
ceramic production, a popular subject for the ceramic historian. Subjects included are an early 
eighteenth century "poor potter" in Yorktown, Moravian potters in North Carolina, potters 
in Cheesequake, New Jersey, and the nineteenth-century Tucker porcelain factory in Phila- 
delphia. Another concerns the manufacture and importation of Staffordshire salt glazed 
stoneware, one of the popular ceramic forms in Colonial America. Another smaller group of 
articles concerns non-English and non- American ceramics. There is an excellent survey of the 
cultural significance of Spanish ceramics and a study of the French dominated Fort Louisburg, 
an area where some English and even American ceramics were also evident. C. Malcolm Wat- 
kins of the Smithsonian Institution has a short essay comparing these two studies and com- 
fnenting on the general pattern of ceramic use in America. The last group represent a com- 
parison between archaeological and the more traditional documentary research techniques. 
Two articles contrast these approaches in describing Plymouth, Massachusetts, in the years 
1635-1835 and likewise two articles on the early eighteenth century John Hicks site in St. 
Mary's City, Maryland. It is this group which is the most notable contribution to the re- 
pwt. They not only provide full social portraits concentrated about ceramics%«t ej^fiHr** 
value the collaboration of the different methods can bring. 

It should be mentioned that Ceramics in America is not a popular book. It is often highly 
technical with lengthy detailed descriptions of artifacts or production procedures and often 



Reviews of Recent Books 1 1 3 



with numerous statistical charts and surveys. Yet, the book is it notable addition to American 
social history, and it is hoped historians analyzing American culture will begin to consult more 
than they have the findings of archaeology these essays reflect. The readers of this magazine 
who are interested in colonial Maryland will enjoy the articles by Lois Carr and Garry Wheeler 
Stone on the Hicks site, combined forming perhaps one of the best social reconstructions of a 
MaitkMi arett-in Mt fie#E^ Studied thus far. 

Maryland Historical Society Richard J. Cox 



Archives and Manuscript Collections of Dickinson College: A Guide. Compiled by Charles 
Coleman Sellers and Martha Calvert Slotten, assisted by Roberta Adam Vincett. (Carlisle, 
Pa.: Friends of the Dickinson College Library, 1972. Pp. iii, 67. $5.00.) 

This slim paperback was compiled as part of the bicentennial history of Dickinson College, 
being celebrated in 1973. It was published to assist the researcher and show the progress that 
institution has had in collecting and the resultant strengths. Great strides have been made since 
the appointment in 1932 of the First Curator of Dickinsoniana, Dr. Boyd Lee Spahr. At that 
time the goals were more Itfrtted— to collect papers pertaining to the college and its notable 
alumni, particularly President James Buchanan and Roger Brooke Taney. But soon the ho- 
rizons expanded to include all United Stales presidents, literary figures like John Drinkwater, 
Carl Sandburg, Sherwood Anderson, Joel Chandler Harris, dif^^SSbtmi^mm lice Uenry 
Ward Beeeher, Alexander GrahaM leM, John C. Calhoun, Andrew Carnegie, and scores of 
others. 

There are also collections including many Maryland names — all easily located by the index: 
James Mason Campbell, Daniel Coit Gilman, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Reverdy Johnson, 
Francis Scott Key, Bfenjsrtntft M. and John H. B. Latrobe, Brantz and Charte f . Mayer, M. L. 
Mencken, George Peabody, Rembrandt Peale, Tench Tilghman and others. Some are repre- 
sented by only one letter, others much more. The notable Roger Brooke Taney collection con- 
tains almost 2000 papers from the files of his Frederick law office. 

From its relatively small beginnings and restricted scope, the Dickinson College archives 
have expanded to over 500,000 manuscript papers. The guide will be especially useful to 
researchers who will now be made aware of Dickinson's holdings. And this publication should 
demonstrate to all friends and Friends of the Dickinson College Library that this small col- 
lide h«s amassied a i<g(naTksble body of original manuscripts. 

Baltimore Nancy G. Boles 



A History of Baltimore Yearly Meeting of Friends: Three Hundred Years of Quakerism in 
Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Central Pennsylvania. By Bliss Forbush. 
(Sandy Spring: Baltimore Yearly Meeting of Friends, 1973. Pp. 174. $3.00 plus 50 cents 
baff^ng.) 

In this small volume. Dr. Bliss Forbush has produced a compact sketch of three hundred 
years of Quakerism in Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Central Pennsyl- 



114 Maryland Historical Magazine 



vania. Quite naturally, the brevity forced upon him by his editorial committee has required 
him to slight some areas (in lolo or in part) that might have been dealt with. Nevertheless, 
the author has created a useful and solid introduction to the history of Baltimore Yearly Meet- 
ing — with an amazing amount of detail, considering the size of the worlc. 

The historical value of the book is enhanced by the addition of an appendix which contains 
information concerning known clerks (presiding officers) of the Yearly Meeting, as weH *s -(he 
membership statistics of the various constituent meetings for 1950, 1960, and 1970, thereby 
showing some of the more recent growth patterns. A very helpful bibliography (although 
lacking some significant items) is also included. 

Dr. Forbush, who is well known for his books on Elias Hicks and Moses Sheppard, is at his 
best in describing the separation of 1828 and the recent uniflcation developments. He also 
presents an ^MMing survey of such areas as Quakers and polities^ %t^^iii«ig6, &mi iihitafl- 
thropy. 

*I%ere are a few minor blemishes in the work, some of which iwight be attrtbtrted to a "com- 
mittee" effort and to the space limitations imposed upon the author by that arrangement. Not 
all meetings which have been a part of Baltimore Yearly Meeting (originally Maryland Yearly 
Meeting) are mentioned in this work. Also there are, unfortunately, a number of factual errors 
which should be noted: There is no evidence that Elizabeth Harris traveled to Rome to see 
the Pope and then returned to Maryland (p. 6); Margaret Lynam lived on the WestcrB'^ore 
rather than the Eastern Shore (p. 10); Virginia's two Eastern Shore counties are meant rather 
than "northern counties" on p. 13; not all of the "sixty such messengers" who came to America 
between 1655 and 1662 came to Maryland (p. 15); although some meetings were transferred to 
Baltimore Yearly Meeting in 1790, others were not surrendered by Philadelphia Yearly Meet- 
ing until a generation later (p. 32); William Southeby removed from Sassafras to Talbot 
County about 1678 and did not go on to Delaware and Pennsylvania until 1684, after helping 
build old Third Haven Meeting House in Easton (p. 41); and Norman Morrison was at Stony 
Run Meeting rather than at its predecessor. Park ^mum'Mmei^m (P- 1^5). 

Southern Methodist University Kenneth L. Carroll 



History of the Town of Glen Burnie. By Ruth P. Eason. (Glen Burnie, Md.: The Kuethe Li- 
brary, Inc., 1972. Pp. ix, 220. $6.50.) 

The writing of local history offers the dedicated amateur a rare opportunity in today's spe- 
cialized world. Mrs. Eason's compilation is an excellent example of the contribution that can 
be made, as well as an indication of some things to be avoided. 

Born and raised in the area of her study, Mrs. Eason writes her History of the Town of Glen 
Burnie with obvious affection and firsthand knowledge. In addition her book, superbly pub- 
lished under the auspices of the Trustees of the Kuethe Library, contains several score of 
fascinating photographs which enhance the story of the town from a mild beginning in the 
1880s to today's position as the hub of northern Anne Arundel County. 

The History touches briefly on the Curtis Creek Furnace, an eighteenth century enterprise 
of the Dorsey family, and several of the nineteenth and twentieth century families that were 
prominent in the evolution and growth of the area. These include the Glenns, who owned, 
p^sN^,' aMdliMi%ii^^^iliiti»ifii«toMn were and are so instrumental in the 



Reviews of Recemt Books 



115 



town's growth; the Woodfalls, Brayshaws and Hamlens, all of whom contributed a share to 
the development and lore of Glen Burnie. 

Students of our current folkways will be interested in the coverage given the "Big Glen 
Burnie Carnival," inaugurated in 1908 to raise funds for community projects and in continu- 
ous yearly operation ever since. Although modern thrill rides have replaced the early jousting 
tournaments, the atmosphere of community involvement has been retained. 

Mrs. Eason's compilation devotes chapters of varying thoroughness to the industry and 
commerce of the Glen Burnie area and to community facilities, services, churches, schools, 
and so forth. These include brief histories of the fire, police, and health organi^i<Ms as wril 
as the postal and telephone services. The prominent role of the Glen Burnie Improvement 
Association in community affairs is emphasized throughout. Facts and trivia of early years 
have been nostalgically recorded and contribute greatly to the charm of the book. The History 
contains in addition the names of hundreds of local residents who participated in the town's 
activities in times too quickly forgotten. 

Mrs. Eason has relied heavily on newspaper articles for much of her information. While 
this adds greatly to the human interest value of her story, there is always the question of ac- 
curacy inherent in such sources. Largely understated is the critical impact on the commercial 
vitality of the.town made by the plethora of shopping and professional centers mushrooming 
iti the area in recent years. The researcher is further cautioned that the index is inadequate. 

All in all, however, this is a long first step forward in recognizin<g the imp*rt«ii6e-«C «««of 
Baltimore's neglected but most vibrant suburban areas. 



Glen Burnk 



Mark Norton Schatz 



BOOK NOTES 



/ Didn't Know That! An Exhibition of First Happenings in Maryland. By Edgar Heyl. (Balti- 
more: Maryland Historical Society, 1973, Pp. x, 61. $3.00.) Those familiar with the Maryland 
Historical Society know its tradition of periodically mounting major exhibitions on a variety of 
topics ranging from bridal costumes to the Star-Spangled Banner. The Society has never been 
more active than of late, and gjK of the fruits of this tradition was the spectacularly successful 
exhibition and catalogue under review. Mr. Edgar Heyl is widely icnown for his expertise in sev- 
eral fields, and his skills were never put to more effective use than in / Didnt Know That! A 
chance remark of his to P, W. Filby, director of the Society and genius at putting others to 
work, led to this intriguing display, Mr. Heyl has applied his own immense energies and learn- 
ing, with help from a wide-ranging group of specialists, to collect an astounding list of Maryland 
firsts, many of which turn out to be national or even world firsts as well. The scope of the under- 
taking is amazingly broad, from 1634 to 1973 covering every imaginable field of endeavor. 
Whatever one's interest — medicine, law, religion, music, publishing, business, technology, 
education — when and where it was done first in Maryland is noted. For each of the items de- 
scribed, a reliable printed source is cited. In the course of preparing the work, several well- 
known firsts were discovered to be false, and many unsuspected firsts were uncovered. A large 
and varied display of firsts was held at the Society from September 24 through December 2, 
1973. The hundreds of viewers were constantly amused and sarprised by both the importance 
and multiplicity of exhibits. Again and again bemused spectators mumbled to themselves, "1 
didn't know that!" And your reaction will probably be the same as you learn of the first re- 
frigerator, balloon ascension, circulating library, American fox hounds, ouija board, automatic 
traffic signal, synthetic sweetening agent (saccharine), and so on for 176 separate items. This 
most attractive catalogue, comi^te with twelve full page illustrations, a brief foreword, intro- 
duction, a section on legendary Af^flnd a detailed index, was printed with distinction by the 
press of Schneidereith & Sons of Baltimore. / Didnt Know That! was a bright idea whose time 
came, was seized, and beautifully made manifest m an absorbing exhibition and catalogue. 
Those who unfortunately missed the exhibition can recapture its spirit with the catalogue, on 
sale at the Society. 

The Star-Spangled Banner. Written and illustrated by Peter Spier. (New York; Doubleday, 
1973, Un-pa'ged. $5.95.) is drawii and written especially with the family in view. The coloring is 
lively and the depictions are in accordance with the story of the battle. There are well chosen 
comparisons between the Baltimore of 1814 and modern Baltimore. Unhappily, although the 
story of the battle and its background is well told, the events from the time Key saw the fiag 
fiying are taken from the legend, and since this book is intended for family edification, it is a 
pity that the Maryland Historical Sociefy's Star-Spangled Books (1972) could not have 
been used so that the young might have the true story. Despite these shortcomings, the book 
will be pleasing to young and old alike for its illustrations. It includes a poster depicting in full 
color the History of the American Flag. [P. W. Filby] 

Edwin Bemett and the Prodttcts of His Baltimore Pottery. By Eugenia Calvert Holland, 
with catalogue descriptions by D. Glidden, (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1973. 



116 



Book Notes 1 1 7 



Pp. [iii], 44. $1.50.) Edwin Bennett has been called the "father of the pottery industry in this 
country," and his company, producing a wide variety of products from porcelain to roofing 
tile, from whiteware to Rockingham glaze, became the largest manufactory of its kind in the 
South. As both an industrial pioneer and a consummate craftsman, Bennett well deserves the 
attention given him by an extensive exhibition of his work at the Maryland Historical Society 
in the summer of 1973. Eleven cases of representative works were shown, together with many 
separate items and a twelfth case of sample tools and utensils used in the production process. 
This brief pamphlet includes an informative biographical sketch of Bennett by Miss Holland. 
She provides the history of his operations in Baltimore, discussing his personal life, his attempts 
to improve his pottery, his various formulas for particular glazes or clay bodies, and his general 
contributions to the pottery industry. D. Glidden helpfully provides careful, detailed descrip- 
tions of the 132 items exhibited. A five page bibliography and a page illustrating a variety of 
Bennett pottery marks complete the catalogue. The exhibit was largely based upon the mag- 
nificent private collection belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Bennett Filbert, Such cooperative 
exhibitions, graced with such catalogues, are one of the glories of the Maryland Historical 
Society. 

Winterthur Portfolio 8. Edited by Ian M. G. Quimby. (Charlottesville: Published for The 
Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum by The University Press of Virginia, 1973. Pp. 
viii, 246, [i], $10.00.) Those familiar with the great Winterthur Museum near Wilmington, 
Delaware, will expect this volume to emphasize the artifact as a reference for the investigation 
and documentation of seventeenth through nineteenth century American culture. Six of the 
ten articles in the volume do use such non-literary sources as Pennsylvania Fraktur, Shaker 
furniture, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant ecclesiastical architecture, and the restored Har- 
monist town at Economy, Pennsylvania, to illustrate the plurality within American religion. 
The other four articles are based upon more typical written sources to investigate the self- 
image of the late nineteenth century Protestant minister, the British fund raising successes of 
Samuel Davies, little-known Shaker attitudes toward childrearing, and the popularity and 
prestige of William Ellery Channing, Though certainly a disparate collection of articles, their 
very dissimilarity lends credence to the book's obvious theme of the rich "diversity in American 
religious life," Quite expectedly the articles seem to this reader to be markedly uneven in qual- 
ity. Others will no doubt have individual favorites, but the following three appear to me to be 
the most significant: Mary Lyn Ray's "A Reappraisal of Shaker Furniture and Society," 
Charles Morse Stoly's "Threshold of the Golden Kingdom; The Village of Economy and Its 
Restoration," and Edward Deming Andrews and Faith Andrews, "The Shaker Children's 
Order," The volume is handsomely illustrated, attractively produced, and well-indexed. It 
will appeal to a wide variety of readers. 

Into the Cauldron. By John J. Peterson. (Clinton, Maryland: Clavier House, 1973. Pp. 220. 
Paper, $1.95.) During one destructive week in early April, 1968, urban rioting, following in the 
wake of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., struck many American cities. After 
sketching the disruptions in several cities, this book focuses on those National Guardsmen who 
helped restore order in Baltimore, The result is a simplistic, biased, us-versus-them narrative 
completely devoid of any attempt to explain why the rioting happened. The National Guard is 
depicted with extravagant praise, battling against foul-mouthed Negroes on the rampage. 
Uvtda WMMMMion is iticMded, especMly «tie<iM#^pMilf^iil^%tive, If you like blood- 



116 Maryland HistorK*! i|l«t«^r>e 



and-guts stories, with the good guys clearly labeled, and plenty of old-fashioned cussing, 
maybe this book is for you. Perhaps the heavyhanded moralizing will allow the vulgarity to 
escape being labeled obscene, but this work is not particularly uplifting. Such books, which 
can only intensify the animosities of both racial groups, serve little purpose. 

Historical Statistics of the South, 1790-1970. By Donald B. Dodd and Wynelle S. Dodd. 
(University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1973. Pp. vi, 85. Cloth, $7.75; paper, $3.95.) 
This brief volume is a compilation of state-level census statistics for sixteen states labeled south- 
ern, consisting of the eleven former Confederate states plus Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, 
Oklahoma, and West Virginia, There are three sections of figures: the first contains general 
population, agricultural, and manufacturing statistics, in forty-eight categories, for the period 
1790-1970; the second lists statistics, in twelve categories, for manufacturing establishments 
by state, 1899-1963; and the third illustrates population growth, 1900 to 1970, for those 
southern cities having a population of 50,000 or more in 1950. There are notes identifying the 
source of each particular item of census information, and an extensive Glossary of Terms 
identifying such census deflnitions as extended cities and improved land. In a work contain- 
ing so many discrete numbers, errors are to be expected. The compilers ask that mistakes be 
brought to their attention. In case the City of Dallas does not protest, its 1970 population as 
listed on page 74 is exactly 1,000,000 too large. Not exciting reading, but a useful volume for 
alt libraries. 

Perspectives of Empire: Essays presented to Gerald S. Graham. Edited by John E. Flint and 
Glyndwr Williams. (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1973. Pp. xii, 200. $11.50.) Professor 
Graham is an eminent Canadian scholar who from 1949 to his retirement in 1970 occupied the 
Rhodes Chair of Imperial History at King's College, University of London. His students around 
the world have spread his fame, for he was a great teacher, scholar, and editor. Indeed, the 
West African History Series, of which he was general editor, quickly became a landmark in the 
historiography of West Africa. In this festschrift a group of his colleagues and former students, 
commemorating his seventieth birthday, illustrate the range of Graham's scholarly interests. 
In addition to a brief appreciation of Professor Graham and a bibliography of his major writ- 
ings, there are nine substantial essays on different aspects of British imperial history. Although 
very much an academic book for scholars, the well-informed reader interested in the general 
question of how small Britain maintained a large empire for several will And this book 

most thoughtful. 

Black New Orleans, 1860-1880. By John W. Blassingame. (Chicago and London: University 
of Chicago Press, 1973. Pp. xvii, 301. $9.95.) Every visitor to New Orleans is immediately 
captivated by its qualities of distinctiveness, and historians have often pointed to its complex, 
multi-racial past. Blassingame for the first time reconstructs the black community in the 
Crescent City, beginning with a sharply etched sketch of its antebellum existence and conclud- 
ing with a provocative discussion of race relations. Those familiar with the author's previous 
book. The Slave Community, reviewed elsewhere in this Magazine, will expect this work to 
challenge many earlier studies. And it does, perhaps most dramatically in chapt€*fB«it*(*ef« 
he discusses the surprising viability of black family life. In other chapters Blassingame illumi- 
nates such topics as black participation in the Civil War; black property-holding and occupa- 
tions; black edttcationaJ-atid r^i@«s institiitiaMMMWii life and problems. He emphasizes that 



Book Notes 1 1 9 



race relations in New Orleans — consisting of a surprising degreee of integration and yet per- 
sistent segregation — were enormously complicated by the presence of large numbers of free 
blacks and skilled urban slaves before emancipation, as well as by the influence of the Creole 
population. The text is complemented with almost three dozen contemporary illustrations, an 
elaborate appendix, detailed notes, a brief essay on sources with a complete bibliography, and 
an index. Black New Orleans is a well-written, carefully-researched, valuable contribution to 
black, soHthern, and urban history. 

Index of Marriage Licenses, Prince George's County, Maryland, 1777-1886. By Heten W. 
Brown. (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1973. Pp. 249. $10.00.) was published 
in 1971 for private circulation and is now reprinted for a wider audience. Based on original 
manuscripts in the Hall of Records, Annapolis, the book has an alphabetical list of nearly 
14,000 names, with dates of marriage licenses. Supplementary information (minister, resi- 
dence) is also given where stated in the original. With the paucity of Prince George's County 
genealogical information, this work is welcowe. [P. W. Filby] 

Historical Register of Officers of the Continental Army during the War of the Revolution, 
1775-1783, By Francis B. Heitman. Revised by Robert H. Kelby. (Baltimore: Genealogical 
Publishing Company, 1973. Pp. 698. $15.00.) Robert H. Kelby's new and revised edition of 
Heitman's book was first published in 1932 and it contained 6,000 names not in the original 
1914 work. In 1967 the Genealogical Publishing Company reprinted it, and the demand was so 
great that it has been reissued. This standard reference work contains the service records of 
14,000 officers of the Continental Army, including mmy ©fSi^^s ofj t)*? Miiilia State 
troops. Full information is given, [P. W, Filby] 

Readers interested in d'Alte A. Welch's A Bibliography of American Children's Books 
Printed Prior to 1821, reviewed in the Summer 1973 issue of tfiis Magazine by Mr, Edgar 
Heyl, are advised that the publishers have now issued a four-page supplementary "Index to 
Titles Listed Under Author Without Cross References." Owners of the Welch bibliography 
may obtain a free copy of this index. Intended to be lipped in following the main index, by 
writing to John B. Hench, Editor of Publications, American Antiquarian Society, 185 Salis- 
bury Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609. 



NOTES AND QUERIES 



iRferimtimi Relevant to the 37th Annual Maryland House md Garde«.fHgrt)|H ge fw 
Editors of Periodicals and Travel Writers 

PURPOSE: Funds raised are used to help restore and preserve historical houses, churches, 
and gardens throughout Maryland. 

DESCRIPTION: Tours include counties of the tidewater areas and suburban Baltimore. 
Large estates, 17th Century manors and town houses, colonial cottages, and both traditional 
and modern suburban houses offer diversity. Fine antiques in settings of charm and historical 
interest add to the pleasure of the Pilgrim. Chesapeake Bay Cruise includes a walking tour in 
a town reminiscent of colonial s^^^W^. 

SCHEDULi^l«l4 

April 27 — Charles County 

April 28 — Anne Arundel County 

April 30 — Carroll & North Baltimore Counties 

May 1 — Hagerstown, Washington County 

May 2 —St. Georges Rd. & North Roland Park (Suburban Baltimore) 
May 3 — Cecil County 
May 4 — Talbot County 
May 5 — Worcester County 

May 1 1 — Cteia|«iteB Cmse to Oxford on Mwyland's Eastern Shore 

STORY MATERIAL: Prepared articles, photographs, and maps are available upon request, 
or writers and photographers may visit prior to tours. For information contact Pilgrimage 
Headquarters, as above. 

ADMISSION: Ticket Im imm A*WI»€» copy— Tour Book— $1.00. Cruise tickets, 

including lunch $15.00 

ACCOM MODATIONS: Attractive inns, comfortable hotels and motels, and city and rural 
restaurants are accessible. Luncheons are served in a local church on most tours. 



Significant Event 

We would like to take the liberty of recording an important local event: the birth of 
David Christopher Boles. Congratulations are in order for his parents, Professor 
John B. Boles and Mrs. Nancy G. Boles. Mrs. Boles was formerly Curator of Manu- 
scripts for the Society and an invaluable asset to the Magazine. Her services to this 
publication will be sorely missed, but we hope that she will mm mMvt hcf talents in 
the training of a future historian. 

120 



Notes and Queries 



121 



SOCIETY HOURS AND HOLIDAYS 



The Gallery is open Tuesday through Saturday from U a.m. to 4 p.m. and Sunday 
from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Hours for the Library are: Tuesday through Saturday from 
9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The Society is CLOSED EVERY MONDAY in addition to the 

following holidays during 1974; 



A conference on local and regional history sponsored by the Maryland Department of General 
Services will be held June 14 and 15, 1974 at the Hall of Records in Annapolis. The conference 
will honor Morris L. RadofFs thirty-five year service as State Ardiivist and w^Mfdctts sttefltfon 
gn recent trends in historical research made possible by the Maryland state archives. Funds 
are available to pay expenses of contributors and for publication of papers presented. Anyone 
interested in submitting a paper or attending the conference can obtain further details from the 
conference coordinator, Dr. Lois Green Carr, St. Mary's City Commission, P. O. Box 838, 
Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland 21404. 



STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION (/)c( of Augu.u 12. 1970: Section J6>I5. Title 39. United 
States Code). I. Date of filing; Sept. 28. 1973. 2. Title of Publication: Maryland Historical Magazine. 3. Frequency of Issue- Quarterly, 
4. Location of Known Office of Publication: 201 W. Monument St., Baltimore. Md. 2 1 20 1. 5. Location of the Headquarters or General Busi- 
ness Offices of the Publishers: 201 W. Monument St.. Baltimore. Md. 21201 . 6. Names and Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing 
Editor: Publisher: Maryland Historical Society, 201 W. Monument St., Baltimore, Md. 21201; Editor: Dr. Richard R. Duncan, Department 
of History, Georgetown University, Washington, D. C. 20007. Managing Editor: P. W. Filby, 201 W. Monument St.. Baltimore, Md. 21201. 
7. Owner; Maryland Historical Society, 201 W. Monument St., Baltimore, Md. 21201. No stock — nonprofit organization, g. Known Bond- 
holders. Mortgagees and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding I Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages or Other Se- 
curities: None. 10. The purpose, function and nonprofit status of this organi7.ation and the exempt status for Federal income tax purposes have 
not changed during preceding i 2 months. I. Extent and Nature of Circulation: A. Total No. Copies Printed (Quarterly) (Net Press Run): 
3,000; B. Paid Circulation; I. Sales Through Dealers and Carriers. Street Vendora gji^C^ptiffS^: No^t; 2, l>WIS l l b i Mi pli9g > (Meinbtr- 
ships): 3.866; C. Total Paid Circulation: None; D. Free Distribution (Schools Mil .MMlthS): n4; £. IMA ftMlibllttoli: 4,?37: F. OfTKC 
Use, Left-over, Unaccounted, Spoiled After Printing: 273; G. Total 5,000. 

I ceittfy thai the statements made by me above aie correct and complete. 



Tuesday, January 1 
Monday, February 18 
Friday, April 12 
Monday, May 27 
Thursday, July 4 
Saturday, August 31 
Monday, September 2 
Monday, October 14 
Monday, October 28 
Thursday, November 21 
Wednesday, December 25 
Wednesday, January 1, 1975 



New Year's Day 

Washington's Birthday 

Good Friday 

Memorial Day 

Independence Day 

Museum open, Library closed 

Labor Day 

Columbus Day 

Veterans Day 

Thanksgiving 

Christmas Day 

New Year's Day 



Cenference on Mar^trnd md Regional History 



MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY 
P. William Filby, Director 



CONDENSED STATEMENT OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES 
MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY 
For The Nine Months Ended June 30, 1973 



Revenues: 
Dues 

Contributions, legacies and trusts 
Investment income from Endowment Fund 
Sales and service fees 

Less: Cost of materials and merchandise 
Library service and reproduction fees 

Less. Transferred to Fees Fund for special salary costs, ($703.18 
being so expended to June 30, 1973) 
Transfer from Undesignated LiJ»t«ry Pend to cover special salary 

costs 

Darnall Museum funds from Darnall Fund principal for equipment 
Use of building charged to programs, and other income 
Total revenues 



$14,770.89 
3.086.69 
3.332.87 
3,332.87 



$ 35,727.50 
61,267.02 
140,358.72 

11,684.20 



2,088.80 

1, 161.91 
1,154.^55 
$253,442.70 



Expenditures — Operations: 

Maritime Museum $ 940.17 

Museum and Gallery 28,726.76 

Darnall Museum 10,686.39 

Library 35,991.96 

Manuscript Division 11,314.52 

Magazine 19,729.58 

History Notes 2,185.35 

Building Operations 71,538.48 

Administrative And General 90,558.93 

Otiier Expenditures: 

Fund Drive costs 279.71 

Transfer to Oral History project 5,080.060 
Total expenditures 

fxcess oi expenditures over reve*i«es for year — general activities 



$271,672.14 



5,279.71 
$276,951.85 



$(23,509. 15) 



Note: The Society has other activities, supported by federal and state grants and by Special Funds dedi- 
Cft^ exclusively to such special projects, which are not reflected above. A copy of the (Istwisd eeport 
oil the overall activities of the Society is available for reference at the Society's offices. 



122 



A Spirit of Dissension 

Economics, Politics, and the Revolution in Maryland 

RONALD HOFFMAN 

On the eve of the American Revolution, Maryland faced a crisis of 
alarming dimensions as angry blacks, dissatisfied whites, and pas- 
sionate loyalists united against the state's revolutionary leaders. 
Ronald Hoffman explains how the revolutionary movement developed 
in Maryland and how its leaders maintained order by placing control 
of vital government institutions in ^ hmtM ^ upper class. 
Maryland Bicentennial Studies. $10.00 



Maryland and the EfH^e/ 1773 

The Antilon-First Citizen Letters 

edited, with an introduction, by 

PETER S. ONUF 

The letters of Daniel Dulany, Jr. ("Antilon") and ChltAfe Carroll 
("First Citizen"), reprinted here in original form, were occasioned 
by Maryland Governor Robert Eden's proclamation establishing 
officers' fees, after the legislature had failed to do so. Peter Onuf 
shows how this debate characterized the constitutional conflict which 
destroyed the empire within three years: local autonomy protected 
by a constitution versus ultimate sovereignty of the parliament over 
the colonies. Maryland Bicentennial Studies. $10.00 



of related interest 

The Politics of Continuity 

Maryland Political Parties from 1858 to 1870 

JEANH. BAKER 

"For professor Baker the period of political realignment in Maryland 
came before the war with the collapse of Know-Nothingism, not in 
its aftermath. . . . This extraordinarily well-done and well-written 

book will be essential reading for anyone interested in understanding 
Maryland politics during that critical period." — North Carolina 
Historical Review In The GsjaAeJ Cilk^ Series, |i«fclished for 
Goucher College $11.00 

Johns Hopkins 

The Johns Hopkins University Press 
Baltimore, Maryland 21218 



NOW AVAILABLE 

GENEALOGICAL 
RESEARCH IN 
MARYLAND: 
A GUIDE 

By Mary Keysor Meyer 
Assistant Librarian and 
Genealo^st 

83 pp. 
81/^ X 1 1 Spiral Bound 
$4.50* 

* Maryland resident please 
add 4% saks tax. 

THE MARYLAND 
HISTORICAL 
SOCIETY 

201 West Monument Street 
Baltimore, Maryland 21201 



For nearly 20 fears the 
GENEALOGICAL 
PUBLISHING CO. 
has been actively reprinting 
out-crf-print books on 

GENEALOGY 
LOCAL HISTORY 
HERALDRY 

Write for free catalogues. 

We also have a large stock 
of books on 

GENEALOGY 



GENEALOGICAL 
PUBLISHING CO., INC. 
Regional Publishing Company, 
Affiliate 
521-523 St. Paul Place 
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 




RARE AMERICANA 



Paint infjs 
Prints 

Avniture 

Books 

Stamps 



Pewter 

China 

Bottles 

DocuoMnto 

Coins 



BoucuT --mum - arpbaised 

JAMES B. McCLOSKEY 

Member American Society of Apprtnaers 



6127 N. Charles St 
baltimure 



Phone: 377-5959 
377-6969 



By Appointment Only 



TRADITIONAL 
FURNITURE 

From Americas outstanding 
sources . . . in wide open 
stock selection 

Complete interior planning 
and advisory service in the 
Williamsburg tradition 

FALLON 8c HELLEN 
11 and 13 W. Mulberry St. 

Baltimore, Md. 21201 
LExington 9-3345 



mm, BROOKS 

& COMPMY 

INSURANCE 

Since 1898 



213 ST. PAUL PLACE 
BALTIMORE 




FINE COLLECTICN OF ANTIQUE FURNTIURE Jt^f ^ 

ANTIQUES RESTORED, REFINISHBD, M© REPROXJCHD -~ .^^.^.^ 

532 St. Paul Street Baltimore, Md. 21202 
Phone: 837-6919 



Enrico Liberti, Prop. 



ANTIQUES 
& 

FURNITURE 
RESTORATION 

sinm JS^ 

J. W. BERRY & SON 

222 West Read Street 
Baltimore 
Saratoga 7-4687 



Consultants 
by Appointment to 
The Society 



Oil Paintings 
Water Colors 
Signed Graphics 

Porcelains 
Lalique Crystal 
Expert Conservation 
Correct Training 

THE 
PURNELL 
GALLERIES 

407 North Charles Street 



1 



COLLECTORS' AUCTIONS 
CATALOG SALES 



of fine books, antiques, art works, letters & docu- 
ments, antique weapons. Receive fair prices through 
competitive bidding. Appraisals, judicial sales, 
estate sales conducted for individuals, executors 
and attorneys. 

Write for information concerning our catalog sub- 
scriptions, or phone (301 ) 72S-7040 

HARRIS AUCTION GALLERIES 



873--^ I«3WARD STREET, 



.UMIYLAND 21201 



MEMBER: APPRAISERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

AUCTIONEERS ASSOCIATION OF MARYLAND 



What do you know about . . . 



The CarroUs of CarroUton 

A Signer of the Declaration of Independence 

and leader in many Tields 

The Dorseys of Hockley-in-the-Hole 

The Howard County ancestors of President 
Abraham Lincoln 

The Ellicotts, founders of EUicott 

City 

Builders, manufacturers, planters, teachers, 
surveyor of Washington 

The Clarks of Clarksville 

Planters, importers, soldiers, administrators 

The Greenberrys of Whitehall 

Le^to' jf und military affairs, Govwnor 
of M«l9Mm2 



The Griffiths of ancient lineage 
Descendants of Welsh kings and vigorous 
leaders in the colony since 1675 

The Howards of noble ancestry 
The county bears the name of this distin- 
guished, aristocratic family 

The Igleharts, distinguished in law 
and medicine 

trace their Saxon lineafe budc te the Second 
Crusade 

The Ridgelys of great distinction 
One of the most aristocratic and active fami- 
lies in the colony 

The Worthingtons of Worthington 
Valley 

In the colony j^KLfwmly was active 
and promineWlK'tir^wliM' ' 



— and several score other Maryland families who 
distinguished themselves in How^ip^ Cmnty history 

Origin and History oi Howard County 

383 pages, richly illustrated; 29 coats-of-arms of distinguished families In 
full color; 54 reviews of prominent families and 32 photographs of their resi- 
dences plus an ample bibliography and an extensive index. 

On sale direct from the author, Mr. Charles Francis Stein, 17 Midvale Road, 
Baltimore, Maryland 21210 @ $19.50 per copy, shipped postpaid. Where 

«iipc»ue 4% Mil* m ■miiamt^mK0- 



THE WORK OF ADALBERT JOHANN VOLCK, 1828-1912, 
WHO CHOSE FOR HIS NAME THE ANAGRAM V. BLADA. 

By George McC. Anderson 

Privately printed, Baltimore, 1970. 

$10.00 plus 4% sales tax 

40c postage where aj^icabie 

AVAILABLE AT THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY 



THE MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS-: 
OF THE 

MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY 

Compiled by Avril J. M. Pedley 
published in 1968 

1,724 manuscript collections of over 1,000,000 items, representing maKd- 
scripts acquiredji^ttli J^^W to 1968, are described in 3§© including a 

. detailed index. 

The documents listed analytically in this volume provide a rich ofipc^- 
tunity for research in all areas of Maryland and often the nation's history. 
The business, economic, family, local, military, political, religious, and social 
history of Maryland are covered extensively. Although every significant era 
and topic of both Maryland and National history are represented in the 
ttianuscript holdings of the Maryland Historical Society, the cote:atiiRi h 
especially strong for the colonial and antebellum periods. The Manuscript 
Collections of the Maryland Historical Society is a necessary tool in every 
reference library. 

Price |15 (plus |.60 tax for Maryland residents) and $.50 postage and 
handling. 

Please address orders to: 

The Maryland Historical Society 
201 West Monument Street 
Baltimore, Maryland 21201 



CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING 



PHOTOGRAPHY Since 1878 Hughes Co. 

Copy and Restoration Work a Specialty. C. Gaither Scott 

Black and White or color. 115 E. 25th StifiS 

Phone: 889-5540 Baltimore, Md. 2l2t8 

FAMILY COAT OF ARMS 

A Symbol Of Your Family's Heritage from The Proud Past 
Handpainted In Oils In Full Heraldic Colors — Size llVi X 14V2 — $18.00 
Research When Necessary 
Anna Dorsby Under 
PINES OF HOCKLEY 
L66 Defense Highway Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Phone: 263-3384 

PLUMBING — HEATING — AIR CONDITIONING 

M. NELSON BARNES & SONS, Inc. 
Established 1909 Phone: 666-9330 117 Church Lane, Cockeysville 21030 

IF your children do not want the family heirlooms, please let us help you. We have 
been finding good homes for handsome 8Bti%w«s fofr Tgyfaj^s, &wd we still do. 

J. W. Berry & Son— Baltimtn-e— SAratoga 7-4687 



9 



GARAMOND/PRIDEMARK PRESS, INC. 

714 E.PRATT ST. BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202 -ir TEL.- AR£A COOE 301 72^7070 WASHINfiTOfl TEL; 393-5676 



OpportuRitu 

4s YOU MAY KNOW, THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL 

»^ SOCIETY is a private organization dependent upon dues, 
contributions, and a limited endowment for its operation. Because of 
increased costs due to the need for additional staff, programs, and 
maintenance of the building, the Society is urgently in need of 
increased funding. For tlic five years, 1971/2 through 1975/6, the 
Jacob and Annita France Foundation has generously offered to match 
to the sum of $30,000 annually any funds the Society may raise. This 
munificent matching grant provides members and friends with a special 
opportunity to aid the Society. It is hoped that members will mal<e an 
annual contribution and perhaps voluntarily increase their dues 
category. OR: 

YOU MAY WISH TO ESTABLISH FOR THE MARYLAND 
HISTORICAL SOCIETY a separate memorial fund, large or 
small, the increase from which may be either for a special purpose or to 
pay operating expenses. Many historical societies derive major portions 
of their income from bequests— both large and small— from their 
members and friends. Any officer or the Director of the Society will 
gladly discuss this matter with you, if ymi tlesfre. 

^ ^ ^ 

The form of bequest should read: 

"I give and bequeath to the Maryland Historical Society the sum 
of ©eUws." 

Will you give these thoughts your earnest consideration?